Unemployment
	 — 
	Question

Lord Steinberg: To ask Her Majesty's Government when they expect national unemployment figures to begin to fall.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, by long-standing convention, the Government do not publish unemployment forecasts.

Lord Steinberg: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer, which does not take me anywhere at all. So I am going to press the Minister and say to him that, while unemployment is rising, my party wants unemployment to be reduced.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Steinberg: Thank you very much, my Lords. When do the Government believe that the peak in unemployment will be reached and what are they doing at the moment to try to continue to reduce unemployment?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I am delighted to know that the noble Lord's party, given the chance, would seek to reduce unemployment. We need to see how the party's public expenditure plans would be consistent with that aspiration.
	I repeat that the Government do not publish unemployment forecasts. Clearly, a range of data is looked at, including the AME figures available in the Budget, and various workload projections which relate to resource allocation. If the noble Lord is asking what the Government are doing about unemployment, I would say they are doing lots. Indeed, those workload projections are the basis for securing resources from the Treasury. They include, for example, the £1.3 billion that was achieved in November 2008, a further £1.7 billion for Jobcentre Plus and providers in the Budget 2009, and a further £1 billion for the future jobs fund aimed at creating 150,000 new jobs. This Government are doing plenty. They are an active Government who believe that the state should be active in seeking to address unemployment and support people who have lost their jobs.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right not to make a forecast or guess, as most of the best economists in the world are doing. Does he accept that, despite everything that the Government are, rightly, trying to do to keep unemployment down, it is, sadly, likely to rise in the near future at least? However, is it likely to reach the kind of levels that it reached in the years when the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, was in charge of our economic affairs?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that there is a relationship with GDP, and unemployment is generally seen as being a lagging indicator. However, if my noble friend is asking me about current employment or unemployment levels in comparison to the historical position, I can say that employment levels are at about 29 million and we will get the updated figures tomorrow. That compares with the 1980s when the figure at its worst was 23 million. There has been a 5.5 million increase since then. The claimant-count-to-unemployment rate was at 4.8 per cent last month. It was pretty much double that in the 1992-94 recession.

Lord Newby: My Lords, have the Government made any estimate of the impact on unemployment totals of the new test for disability benefit claimants; and, if so, what is it?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, the noble Lord is referring to the employment and support allowance. This was introduced only in October last year, so it is far too early to assess how it is working. There has been some press speculation around that, but until there has been a full year at least for it to settle into a steady state of introduction, it is too early to make any significant estimate.

Lord Peston: My Lords, you do not have to be one of the world's greatest economists to work out that unemployment will reach its peak more or less about the middle of next year, given the underlying dynamics. Does my noble friend agree that the real worry for the country, given what passes for an economic policy on the part of the Official Opposition—most of us have great difficulty working through it to see whether they actually have a policy—is that they might win an election and we will have a double-dip recession in which unemployment, having reached its peak by that time, will start to go up again?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, my noble friend is a far better economist than I could ever hope to be and far be it from me to do other than support his analysis. We know from history the other party's approach to this. In previous recessions, it put people on inactive benefits and left them there, with no support and no help to get back into employment. That is the key difference between our two parties. We believe in an active state that will support people when they fall out of work and will help, support and encourage them back into employment.

Lord Freud: My Lords, perhaps I may refer to the Financial Times article yesterday on the work capability assessment. The Financial Times reported that figures were circulating among welfare intermediaries about the remarkable results of that assessment. When can the House see those figures?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his question and welcome him to his new duties on the Front Bench. We look forward to working with him over many months. I repeat that any assessments in relation to the employment and support allowance are premature. The scheme was introduced only in October last year. The work capability assessment is not yet fully in a steady state. It will make a significant improvement. I will refer the noble Lord to one of his own comments in respect of our approach to these things. In an important report that he produced, he said:
	"The Government has made strong, and in some respects remarkable, progress over the last ten years".
	I commend his judgment.

Lord Broers: My Lords, if the Minister cannot predict when unemployment will drop, perhaps he can tell us when the large stimulus programmes, particularly those for energy, will come to fruition and thereby help the employment situation.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, much of the stimulus programme is working its way through the economy and helping us to make sure that there are more people in work than would otherwise have been the case. We estimate that half a million people are now in work who would not have been if we had not adopted the fiscal stimulus and other components that we have debated on a number of occasions in the House.

Probation Service Officers
	 — 
	Question

Baroness Stern: To ask Her Majesty's Government what are the entry qualifications and initial training requirements for a probation service officer; and how they differ from those required for a probation officer.

Lord Bach: My Lords, no minimum entry qualifications are required for probation service officers or trainee probation officers. The 42 separate probation areas recruit probation service officers locally to nationally agreed role profiles and competencies. Probation service officer training is delivered locally, in line with a nationally agreed core framework. Trainee probation officer entry requirements are based on a nationally agreed competency-based application and assessment centre process. The training lasts two years, resulting in an honours degree in community justice and a diploma in probation studies.

Baroness Stern: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply but perhaps I may reinterpret what he said. Can he confirm that there are in fact two types of probation staff: those with no entry qualifications who are trained for six weeks and those who are trained to degree level? Can he also confirm that between 2000 and 2007 the number of degree-level probation staff fell by 4 per cent and the number of six-week trained staff increased by 75 per cent, so that there are now more six-week trained than degree-level trained people? In the light of the work that we expect the service to do, does he agree that this reduction in the skill levels of the probation service is highly undesirable?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am afraid I do not agree with the noble Baroness on that. I believe that the report to which she refers is Probation Resources, Staffing and Workloads 2001-08,prepared on behalf of Napo. There has been a response to it from the Government. The figures are inaccurate. The number of professionally qualified probation officers in this period did not decrease by 4 per cent but increased by 20 per cent. The inaccuracy in the report was caused by double-counting, with probation officers in training both being counted as a separate group and being included in the figures for qualified probation officers. Therefore, I am afraid that on that point at least the report was wildly inaccurate.

Lord Elton: My Lords, in that case, can the noble Lord kindly tell us what was the average caseload for probation service officers—that is, the lower level that we are speaking about—in Kent at the end of last year? I have seen it reported as being more than 56 cases each.

Lord Bach: My Lords, Kent has confirmed that its current average caseload for a PSO is 68.8, which includes both offenders in prison and those serving their sentence in the community. Of course, it is expected that probation service officers will carry a higher caseload of low-risk offenders, particularly those in unpaid work, while trained probation officers will undertake more intensive work with a smaller number of high-risk offenders.

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, in the light of the rapidly increasing caseloads for probation officers and probation service officers, what investment have the Government put into training probation officers in the past three years? More importantly, what investment do they plan for the future in the light of the current situation?

Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Baroness will know that there has been a sustained increase in probation service funding over the past 12 years. Indeed, between 1997 and 2007 total funding for probation rose by 70 per cent in real terms. The probation service is a high-performing organisation, achieving all but one of its targets in 2008-09. The noble Baroness will also know that there are proposals for the future training of both probation officers and probation service officers. Those proposals, set out in the new probation qualifications framework, are currently out for consultation with a return date of 31 July this year.

Baroness Butler-Sloss: My Lords, what are the current requirements for a probation service officer to qualify? Is it correct that it is six weeks' training and no educational qualifications?

Lord Bach: My Lords, it is not six weeks' training at all. Probation support officers do 12 months' work in an area of the probation service. As part of that they are given core competencies and they are taught various things by various groups. Training is dealt with locally and, at the end of the 12-month period of training in a particular probation area, they qualify as probation support officers. However, under the new scheme the training will be somewhat different.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in speaking about the training of probation officers, the Minister referred to the fact that their training proposals were out for review. In the mean time, according to the Home Office website this morning, all training has stopped. Will the Minister tell the House for how long that will be the case and whether we can assume that there will be no recruitment in the mean time?

Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord cannot assume that at all. He takes me by surprise when he says that the Home Office website says that. This is a matter for the Ministry of Justice.

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, as the Minister knows, offenders in the community are categorised from tier 4 down to tier 1, tier 4 being the most serious. Can the Minister confirm that no category 4 prisoners or offenders are being supervised by anything other than qualified probation officers?

Lord Bach: My Lords, offenders can be categorised as requiring a tier-4 level of service either because they are assessed as posing a high risk of serious harm, and thus need the full range of intense interventions, or because they may be assessed as being very likely to reoffend prolifically. A probation service officer would rarely be an offender manager in a high-risk-of-serious-harm case but would work as the offender supervisor under the supervision of a probation officer.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords—

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we are in the 16th minute.

Cyprus
	 — 
	Question

Lord Watson of Richmond: To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to further prospects for a united Cyprus.

Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead: My Lords, the current negotiations represent the best opportunity that Cypriots are likely to have to resolve the long-standing division of the island. It is up to the two leaders and the Cypriot people to seize the unique opportunity to shape their future for the better. The UK welcomes the personal commitment shown by the two leaders and we shall continue to lend our full support by encouraging positive engagement by all parties to reach an agreement by Cypriots for Cypriots. Although good progress has already been made, efforts must now be intensified to make substantive progress in the coming months. A settlement will deliver major economic, social and political benefits. All parties, therefore, need to show flexibility and good will to reach an agreement. This opportunity will not last for ever.

Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that helpful Answer. Does she agree with my observation on a recent visit to the island that there is a surprising degree of communication and dialogue between the two communities and certainly a shared interest in arriving now at a solution and that the obstacles may lie primarily with Ankara? Therefore, are Her Majesty's Government using the leverage that they have with Ankara, as this country has been a sustained and consistent advocate of Turkish membership of the European Union and there is no chance of Turkey becoming a member of the European Union unless there is a settlement in Cyprus?

Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very good point. However, I point out that, following the recent visit to Turkey, the Foreign Secretary expressed his personal belief and the Government's belief that the Government of Turkey are fully committed to achieving a settlement in Cyprus. Following the April elections in the north of Cyprus, Prime Minister Erdogan and President Gul have both made positive public statements about the importance of supporting Talat in the negotiations.

Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, my noble friend will recall that, in the last round of negotiations, to facilitate territorial adjustments between the parties we agreed to transfer part of the Sovereign Base Area to the Republic of Cyprus. Does that offer still stand?

Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead: My Lords, the focus for now must be on the core settlement negotiations. We will be ready at such time as that occurs to respond to any question of this type, but it must be at the appropriate time.

The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, are the Government urging parties to the current talks to give due consideration to the positive contribution that the religious communities of Cyprus can make to the future of the island? Are the Government also committed to ensuring the highest standards of religious freedom in a reunified Cyprus?

Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead: My Lords, I certainly accept and support what the right reverend Prelate has said. He makes a good and urgent point for us to recognise. The religious division certainly needs to be addressed and understood by us all. We would expect that it will be a factor that will be given priority in the negotiations.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that the factor most likely to drive these negotiations forward would be if the European Union revitalised the negotiations for the accession of Turkey? That would then give a high motivation to all parties involved in the negotiations, including the Turks themselves, to come to a solution on Cyprus. Given the signature yesterday by Turkey and other countries to the Nabucco pipeline agreement, and the accession of the new presidency, which is a good deal friendlier than the previous one to Turkey's point, is this not the moment to get this moving? I leave with the noble Baroness the thought that it is always unwise in Cyprus negotiations to try to impose artificial deadlines; it is best to soldier on.

Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. I think that I am someone who will be prepared to soldier on with this matter. I certainly very much support his point about the importance of Turkey's accession and the opportunity that that presents to move forward the talks in Cyprus. Of course, that contributes to Turkey's security, stability and prosperity, as it does to ours in the European Union. The process is now establishing a clear path towards European standards in Turkey across a range of domestic issues, from human rights to agriculture, business practice and border security. The prospect of EU membership, together with the Turkish Government's determination to give their citizens the quality of life that they deserve and demand, is bringing real change. The noble Lord makes a very important point.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, what the noble Baroness says is very helpful. I know that she appreciates that this has been a very long saga. The United Nations alone has been there for 45 years and, of course, the British were deeply involved before that. I gather that the latest meeting between the two community heads—the Turkish Cypriots and the Greek Cypriots—was last week, on 9 July, on security issues. Can she bring us up to date on what of substance was agreed at that meeting?

Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord the honest answer that I know that security issues were discussed, but I am not absolutely clear whether anything substantial was agreed. I will write to the noble Lord with that information.

Lord Grenfell: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the lesson to be learnt from Cyprus's membership of the European Union is that one should not agree to the accession of countries where territorial disputes are still unresolved? Does she agree that it is very important in future enlargement that that rule is respected? I think in particular of the troublesome case of Croatia and Slovenia, but hope that they will be able to solve this problem bilaterally, rather than have the process of the agreement to the opening and closing of chapters held hostage to the views of one side rather than the other.

Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. The Croatian and Slovenian difficulty illustrates the importance of those benchmarks and of those opening and closing of chapters that have been put in place. The problem that we had with the accession of Bulgaria and Romania was that we were not as rigorous as we should probably have been. I assure my noble friend that that rigorous approach will take place with Croatia, as it will with Iceland in the near future.

Higher Education: Universities
	 — 
	Question

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of whether all young people who qualify for and seek a university place this autumn will be able to find one.

Lord Drayson: My Lords, there has been an unprecedented increase in applications to higher education, with a 45,000 increase this year from UK and EU-domiciled applicants to English universities. The Government are exploring all the options to ensure that as many students as are able and have the appropriate qualifications can benefit from a university education.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. As he said, there has been an unprecedented increase in applications this year and, as a result, many universities will not be offering many places in clearing after the A-level results come out. Is he aware that this is likely to leave as many as 30,000 qualified students without a university place? Why has the department so far refused to lift the cap on places when the cost of maintaining students at university is very much the same maintaining them unemployed, and many of these students will otherwise be unemployed?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right in her analysis. We have seen a significant increase in the number of applicants to university, and therefore clearing will be much more competitive this summer. As I said in my Answer, we are looking at what more we can do. Discussions are taking place at the moment. A number of proposals are being looked at, but we do not have anything specific or concrete that I am able to announce today.

Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, first, why is the Secretary of State, the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, not answering this Question since the news he is conveying to the House is the worst news for universities for over 30 years? If the noble Lord was in the Commons, he would be at the Dispatch Box, but not in this House. Could someone tell the Secretary of State that he has a duty to answer to our House?
	Does the Minister recognise that all universities recognise that between 30,000 and 40,000 youngsters will not be going to university this year, which will be a generation of stunted opportunity? That is an appalling indictment of the way the Government have conducted the public finances of our country.

Lord Drayson: My Goodness! My Lords, I will, of course, pass on to my noble friend the noble Lord's comments, but I feel that that is a frankly ridiculous assessment of the situation. The number of students going to university this summer, despite the significant increase in applicants, will be another record and reflects this Government's continued investment in university education and university places.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the A-level results of students from lower socio-economic groups may well be a little more marginal than those from other groups because of the disadvantage that they have had to overcome? Since the Government's target for university applications from lower socio-economic groups is near to being reached, why are they making it much more difficult for those young people because they are the ones who will have to go through clearing and there will not be many places available?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, I am afraid I do not agree with the noble Baroness's premise. Why should those students be more likely to be going through clearing? If we look at the figures, we can see that our agenda of widening participation has worked. Figures for state schools are up from 81 per cent in 1997-98 to 87.4 per cent last year. We recognise that, in part because of the global economic downturn, a more significant number of young and older people are applying to university this year. We are looking at what more we can do, but we have dramatically improved participation and access to universities over the past 11 years.

Lord Crisp: My Lords, does the Minister think that there will be particular problems for people of mature years or who have dropped out and want to come back to a more appropriate course? If he does, will the assessment that his department is making take account of the needs of these groups?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, we are looking very carefully because we are seeing a shift in the demographic, as the noble Lord said. We are seeing a greater proportion of people from older age groups considering applying to university. One of the other trends that we are seeing, which we regard as a welcome change, is an increased interest in studying stem subjects—it increased by 6.8 per cent last year—and we expect that trend to continue. In this environment, where we have a greater proportion of young and more middle-aged, if you like, people looking to go to university, we are also seeing what we can do to direct and encourage more of them to study the stem subjects that this country needs.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that the Government have a long-term policy? Does he not agree that this Question is directly related to the first Question this afternoon in that if people are not going to get to university, that will have an effect on unemployment? Will he assure us that the Government are looking at the long term in this regard?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, I assure the right reverend Prelate that we are looking to this in the long term. This is a long-term policy, which we have followed through the years of really quite significant economic growth. We recognise the additional pressures that are being placed on the higher educational system, in part because of demographic change but in part because of the economic downturn. We are keen to learn lessons from the past and the experience of the 1990s, when higher education numbers were allowed to expand without sufficient resources being given to them by the previous Conservative Government. That meant that there was a significant drop in the quality of the student experience and backlogs in capital investment—two mistakes which we do not intend to repeat.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, has there been a similar increase in access to university among young people who have been in care and have been looked-after children? Is the Minister aware of the Frank Buttle Trust's kitemark for universities, which demonstrates that a university offers support for young people who have been in care and that they can benefit from it to be successful? Is he also aware of the invaluable support that the trust has provided to care leavers at university to make their careers successful there?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for raising those important issues. I do not have specific figures on the number of applications from people who have been in care, and I will write to him with those numbers.

Lord De Mauley: My Lords—

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we have hit 30 minutes.

Parliamentary Standards Bill

Bill Main Page

Committee (1st Day)

Amendment 1
	 Moved by Lord Strathclyde
	1: Before Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
	"Bill of Rights
	Nothing in this Act shall be construed by any court in the United Kingdom as affecting Article IX of the Bill of Rights 1689."

Lord Strathclyde: I trust that your Lordships will bear with me as I try to fill the giant gap left in our counsels by the death of my late friend Lord Kingsland, one of whose last characteristically incisive speeches in this House was his clinical dissection of this sorry Bill at Second Reading.
	My late friend played a constructive and effective part in negotiations that changed this Bill from being a highly dangerous measure to one that still gives profound grounds for disquiet but has been improved by the major changes that the Government have already made. I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for being prepared to listen in this process, but I must also say bluntly that so far she has listened with only half an ear, as is demonstrated by the amendments in her name that we will discuss later this afternoon. They do not go far enough and, if she cannot go further, I shall ask your Lordships to make further changes to the Bill. Indeed, I hope that the Committee will insist on some of those changes if matters cannot be resolved before next Tuesday.
	We have heard much from the noble Baroness about the public's concern about parliamentary expenses, which is right and well understood by all. However, it does not mean that Parliament should abrogate all its responsibilities. There is no major quarrel about those parts of the Bill that deal with the management of expenses, although, if recent events have shown anything, it is that nothing is more powerful than transparency. Indeed, we have tabled no amendments to Clauses 1 to 4.
	However, this Bill went and still goes very much further. We are making laws, creating new criminal offences and dealing with a Bill obviously made up in a hurry and now being amended in a hurry, too. We have agreed to use our endeavours to let the other place have the Bill that they have asked for before the Summer Recess, but we will not be frightened by anonymous spin into letting a bad Bill become bad law. The old adage applies: legislate in haste, repent at leisure. That is one inescapable reason why a sunset clause to some clauses in this Bill is essential to enable the new Parliament that we so desperately need to decide on a long-term regime and to prevent error and, still worse, injustice from being embedded into our political system. The sunset clause tabled by the noble Baroness is simply inadequate and she needs to go much further on it. We will deal with that when we come to it.
	This amendment goes to the heart of the deep constitutional anxieties raised by the Bill. It addresses one of the most important issues debated at length in another place and here at Second Reading: the relationship between Parliament, the Executive and the courts. That had, I thought, been settled in 1689 and 1701, so it has been utterly astonishing to find the basic freedoms of Parliament being casually thrown into doubt. No one who has read the comments on this Bill-in-the-making by the Clerk of the Parliaments, by the Clerk in another place and in the distinguished report of your Lordships' Constitution Committee can have any doubt that an amendment such as this is needed. Rarely have I read such coruscating comments in any documents laid before the House. No one who listened to the powerful speeches in your Lordships' House at Second Reading, including those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and my noble friends Lord Goodlad and Lord Higgins, could have any doubt that a firm and explicit defence is needed.
	Article IX of the Bill of Rights sets out clearly that the debates and proceedings of Parliament are not matters for courts to question. That is not an archaic and irrelevant principle. Nor are parliamentary proceedings matters for executive appointees to dictate, as was suggested in the original Bill. The ability of MPs to raise their constituents' concerns and represent their views depends on this protection. The possibility that this Bill shakes that protection shows just how little thought the Government have given to the content of this Bill as opposed to the content of the press releases surrounding it. The Government have conceded that this Bill raises these concerns. They have been shedding clauses as scrutiny of the Bill has proved beyond even their ability to deny that they have breached privilege.
	The amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Jenkin identify further areas where the same arguments apply and have been made. We all know what some in the Government will have told the noble Baroness to say as she takes up her folder with a tag marked "Resist". But I ask the noble Baroness to reply today as the Leader of the House and a good parliamentarian and to answer the question why on earth she would not accept this fundamental amendment.
	At Second Reading, the noble Baroness tried the other old Minister's line of, "It isn't necessary". She told us that the Government,
	"do not believe that the Bill is incompatible with Article IX of the Bill of Rights. It ... will not change the relationship between Parliament and the courts".—[Official Report, 8/7/09; col. 747.]
	If that is the case, there can be no reason in principle to reject this amendment, for it states explicitly what she claims is the case.
	We need a firm affirmation in the Bill and a clear sign to the courts that this Bill is not and must not be amended to become any invitation to anyone to detract from the hard-won freedom of Parliament in Article IX. I hope that the Government will feel able to accept this amendment, which would lay to rest the concerns expressed in such powerful terms by noble Lords who are much more experienced in legal matters than I am. Above all, as a parliamentarian who has learnt to be just a little distrustful of placing Parliament's rights and our ancient freedoms in the hands of this particular Executive, I believe that we would be wise to make it clear that we hold the principle of Parliament's sovereignty as firmly in the 21st century as did our forebears in the historic convention of 1689.

Lord Barnett: I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord has just said. Can he tell us whether he meant that, unless the Government accept this very important new clause, which I strongly support, he will press it to a vote?

Lord Strathclyde: Yes, I can make it quite clear. We will certainly press this to a vote. I find it extraordinary that anybody would wish to vote against it. I beg to move.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I realise that this is an unusual procedure, but with the leave of the Committee it might be helpful if I make a few comments before we debate the first group of amendments. As I said at Second Reading, Parliament and politics face a huge task in seeking to dispel public anger with our politics and politicians and to replace it with public trust and confidence instead. That is what this Bill is all about. Its fundamental purpose is to replace the self-regulation of expenses, allowances and financial interests with a system of independent, transparent and robust regulation.
	The Government have listened carefully with probably one and a half ears to what people both in this House and the other place have said about the Bill. In the other place, amendments were made to provide that the Bill will not set aside parliamentary privilege and not include a statutory requirement for there to continue to be a code of conduct incorporating the Nolan principles. Following the debates in the other place and in the light of what I heard in this House, a number of government amendments have been tabled. I am grateful to noble Lords for their trenchant comments made at Second Reading.
	Further to my letter of 13 July, which has been laid in the Vote Office, I hope that the amendments will go a long way towards reassuring your Lordships. We have tabled amendments, first, to remove the offence on paid advocacy from the Bill; secondly, to provide that the commissioner will refer his or her findings directly to the House of Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges; and, thirdly, to provide that the commissioner will not be required to refer findings to the Committee on Standards and Privileges if the transgression is minor and the Member in question has already agreed to take appropriate remedial action. We have introduced greater safeguards into the procedures that the commissioner will be required to have. They include an opportunity for the Member to be heard in person and an opportunity, where appropriate, to call witnesses.
	I could go on, but I come instead to the sunset clause. We have tabled an amendment to require that the parts of the Bill that relate to offences be continued by order every two years. We believe that that approach is about balance. However, I hear what the noble Lord says and I am minded to return to the sunset clause, which I would call a review clause, later in the debates. Also, as noble Lords will recall, I gave a commitment that the Bill should be subject to formal post-legislative scrutiny within the next two years.
	In order to respect the strength of feeling in this House on the issues of principle that have been raised, I am happy to accept Amendment 1 on the Marshalled List in the name of the noble Lords opposite. I am also happy to accept the principle of Amendment 2, with some exceptions. I undertake to return to this at the Report stage. Your Lordships will recall that I gave an undertaking that this legislation would not apply to the House of Lords and, of course, the commitment still stands.
	While the debate has been lively, I hope and think that we can agree on the key principles that are central to the Bill. The current arrangements for administering MPs' allowances must be replaced. We must respond to the public's legitimate concerns. There should be an independent body to administer and oversee MPs' allowances and the registration of financial interests, and any new system of regulation should be independent, transparent and robust. I have been listening and I have acted accordingly.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I have to say that I am sorry that that statement has been made before I could explain why Amendment 1, far from clarifying the position, actually creates some confusion and why it is unnecessary. I had better say that, even though the Government have indicated that they will accept the amendment. I was not able to be here yesterday, but let me say at the beginning how sad I am that that most noble and most learned Lord and friend, Lord Kingsland, is not here today to deal with this and how gallantly the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has stepped in, better than most lawyers.
	The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said that he thought that the freedoms of Parliament had been casually thrown into doubt. I do not think that that is true. He has not identified anything in the Bill that puts into doubt either Article IX or the way in which it has been interpreted. The problem with the amendment as it stands is that it applies only to this Act, not to other Acts. Far from clarifying the law, it leaves it in a state of uncertainty, as we will see when we come to judicial review, a tribunal, fairness and other matters. It does not grapple with the central problem identified by the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, which is that Parliament is subject to Article 6 of the European convention and when it uses its disciplinary powers in an extreme way there are problems about fairness.
	The present law is perfectly clear and any suggestion that the courts might need Amendment 1 in order to keep off the grass of Parliament's lawns is totally wrong. The great case that decided this, in which I appeared on one side, was Pepper v Hart. As we have no constitutional legal adviser and the Law Officers are not here, I remind your Lordships of what was made quite clear in that case. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, said:
	"Article 9 is a provision of the highest constitutional importance and should not be narrowly construed. It ensures the ability of democratically elected Members of Parliament to discuss what they will (freedom of debate) and to say what they will (freedom of speech). But even given a generous approach to this construction, I find it impossible to attach the breadth of meaning to the word 'question' which the Attorney-General urges".
	He continued:
	"In my judgment, the plain meaning of Article 9, viewed against the historical background in which it was enacted, was to ensure that Members of Parliament were not subjected to any penalty, civil or criminal, for what they said, and were able, contrary to the previous assertions of the Stuart monarchy, to discuss what they, as opposed to the monarch, chose to have discussed. Relaxation of the rule"—
	this is the rule against Hansard being used as an aid to statutory interpretation—
	"will not involve the courts in criticising what is said in Parliament".
	He then said this, which is very important in the context of the Bill:
	"Moreover, the Attorney-General's contentions are inconsistent with the practice which has developed over a number of years in cases of judicial review. In such cases Hansard has frequently been referred to with a view to ascertaining whether a statutory power has been improperly exercised for an alien purpose or in a wholly unreasonable manner".
	He cited as an example the case of Brind, where Hansard was used for that purpose in judicial review proceedings. In conclusion he explained why there was no threat to Article IX. The case of Prebble, which I shall not bore the Committee with, was a Privy Council decision where the law was made even clearer.
	The judges have made quite clear the boundaries of Article IX and the important ways in which they must respect the laws of Parliament and not intrude. I still await to be told by someone what it is about this Bill—especially after the government amendments described by the Leader of the House—that will put any of that in jeopardy. There is the matter of fairness, which we will attend to later, but that is not covered in the amendment. We are rushing to accept the amendment and to get the Bill through. That happened once before, with a previous Government, when we rushed to amend the Defamation Act to enable Neil Hamilton to sue the Guardian, and Lord Simon of Glaisdale and others on the Cross Benches explained why that was a constitutional monstrosity. This amendment is not a constitutional monstrosity, but I urge those who support it to explain what it is about the Bill that requires it.

Lord Lloyd of Berwick: I fail to understand the noble Lord's position. He says that the amendment is not necessary, but is he saying that there is any harm in it?

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Any harm would be, if in future, because the amendment refers only to this Bill, it were to be interpreted in some way as glossing the position so far as other Bills are concerned. That is the only harm that could be done. The main case against it is that it is wholly unnecessary and that the courts have made the position absolutely clear.

Lord Peston: If we are being told—

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My name is down—

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: If we hear my noble friend, who I think was making an intervention, I am sure that we can then move to the noble Lord when the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has responded.

Lord Peston: The noble Lord leaves me completely bewildered. Is he saying, after the Leader of the Official Opposition has moved the amendment and the Leader of the House has accepted it, that he will demonstrate the wisdom that the Liberal Democrats showed last Wednesday and divide the Committee and vote against it? That would break an all-time record for irrational behaviour in the House of Lords.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I do not think that this is an occasion for forensic sarcasm. I am simply saying that Parliament should not legislate in vain and that this is not a necessary amendment, because the courts, by their case law, have shown perfectly well the need to respect Article IX of the Bill of Rights. Since no one has yet explained what threat the Bill poses to Article IX, I am saying that those who support the amendment on the government or the Conservative side need simply to inform the Committee of the problem about Article IX in the context of the Bill, other than that of fairness. That is all. Parliament is entitled to have that question answered.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has said, except his conclusion, because if he concludes that the amendment will do no harm, even though it is not necessary, surely he will not vote against it.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I would not dream of voting against it. All I am saying is that we are a legislative body looking at a piece of legislation in a hurry and that someone needs to explain to the Committee what the problem is. I have not heard anybody do so. The late Lord Kingsland, in a marvellous speech, did not identify the problem. I certainly would not oppose the amendment, but it would be good if Parliament were to be informed by somebody of exactly what the problem is about Article IX.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: As I support the amendment, I am relieved that noble Lords are equally as bewildered as me. I simply do not begin to understand the logic, the sense or the direction of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lester.
	I am most grateful to the Leader of the House for saying that she accepts the amendment. It goes to the essence and heart of the Bill. It was drafted by Lord Kingsland and bears the mark of his authority.
	It is a purpose amendment, related to Amendment 2, also drafted by him, which goes to the essence and purpose of the Bill. That is nothing to which the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, has referred. The purpose of the Bill is to enable another place to devise its requisite reforms and implement its domestic procedures as to conduct of honourable Members by virtue of the constitutional freedoms of both Houses under the Bill of Rights. That is the essence of it.
	As the noble Baroness accepts it, I can see no reason why, if the Bill is related only to that purpose, it should not be accepted by the House. But it is not. That is the trouble—hence the legal bewilderment. I am a lawyer, and I very often get bewildered, but I have never been as bewildered as I am today. One has to accept the fundamental concept that the Bill of Rights gives parliamentary freedoms to both Houses and that if that is slighted by this Bill, it would set an evil precedent that could well affect this House in time to come. We can forget about sunset clauses—it is nothing to do with that observation.
	Second Reading enabled a series of amendments to be tabled—I think quite a few are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lester—which inhibited such entitlement by proposing statutory ordinance which had to be accepted by another place, such as resort to courts of law, appeals, and one thing and another, which are without the constitutional provision. If one slights this provision, this is dealt with in the related purpose amendment in the name of my noble friend, Amendment 2. In time to come, it will affect, or could affect, this House.
	I have only a little more to say, and it is not on the basis of a legal argument in the Appellate Committee. This is not the Supreme Court, thanks heavens. The Bill was presented as a sort of political placebo, without consultation on any aspect of constitutional reform. It is not for me to criticise, but that is a fact.
	The Bill should pass but—in a sense this has been said by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde—only if its purpose is limited to acknowledgement and respect of the freedoms of the other place and to enable it to do what it wishes after its own fashion.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: The four amendments grouped with Amendment 1 are in my name. It prompts me to ask the noble Baroness some questions. Let me say straight away that I am delighted that she has said that she will accept Amendment 1 in the name of my noble friends Lord Strathclyde and Lord Henley. I am sure that that will go a long way to meeting the anxieties which were so eloquently voiced at Second Reading.
	My four amendments are designed to make clear that various activities that will be carried out under the Bill will be regarded as proceedings in Parliament and will therefore qualify for the protection that is offered by the Bill of Rights for such proceedings. They concern the question of the code, the register of interests, the question of investigation under Clause 6 and, although I realise that the noble Baroness has already indicated that she is not going to move Clause 7, there were items in that clause that would have needed to have been subject to the same protection.
	One of the points that is so important to make for the public is that when one asks for privilege protection for Parliament, for both Houses, one is trying not to secure concealment but to make certain that none of these matters can be justiciable in the courts.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: Hear, hear.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: A Member of Parliament should be responsible to his constituents, not to the courts, a point that was made by many noble Lords at Second Reading. Will IPSA decisions be justiciable, will they be protected by Clause 1 or do we need the protection of one or other of these amendments? It is a question of the code of practice.
	If they remain justiciable in the courts, Parliament will have to answer to the courts. At Second Reading, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, eloquently made it clear that this is a feature of the separation of powers between Parliament and the courts that so far the courts have been extremely reluctant to breach. They may have to look at the boundaries of a matter, but, once it has been decided as a matter for Parliament, it is not a matter for the courts. I am not clear whether the amendment that I understand the noble Baroness is going to accept will cover these matters.
	Where Clause 6 deals with investigations, it says that an inquiry can be launched in response to a complaint by an individual. It is not difficult to imagine a case where a thoroughly disgruntled member of the public, dissatisfied with what is happening under the Bill, may wish to take the matter to court. I want to be absolutely assured that there is no possibility of a member of the public—

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: I—

Lord Jenkin of Roding: May I just finish my sentence? I want to be assured that there is no possibility of a member of the public launching a case for judicial review on the grounds that IPSA, the commissioner, or the Committee for Standards and Privileges have not done their job properly. That must be a matter for the House of Commons. If the noble Baroness can give—

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: I—

Noble Lords: Order!

Lord Jenkin of Roding: I am sorry; everyone wants to get on. If the noble Baroness can give me that assurance, despite what my noble friend said about supporting these four amendments, I would not believe it necessary to press them. However, if the effect of accepting Amendment 1 will be to leave these new institutions still able to be taken to court by a member of the public, or a Member of Parliament, or whoever, then we have not got what we are seeking in order to ensure that the Bill of Rights fully applies to everything under the Bill. I hope that she can assure me on that.
	In the House of Commons debate, which I will not bother to quote, her right honourable friend Jack Straw, in response to a similar amendment to one of these, said that the Government had not closed their minds to it. What the noble Baroness said some moments ago in response to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde appears to mean that they really had not closed their minds to it and are now minded to accept that amendment. I would like to see further assurances, though, that nothing that is done under the Bill by these parliamentary institutions is likely to result in a judicial review and the matter coming before the courts.

Lord Campbell-Savours: Briefly, I have spent much of my time over the past week reading through the Bill. I firmly endorse the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. The issue of whether areas of the Bill are justiciable is critical to the debates that will now take place. The Bill is effectively in two parts; the first dealing with the independence of the Parliamentary Standards Authority and the second with the question of offences. The Government's handling of the first section of the Bill must depend very much on answers that my noble friend has given. While I wholeheartedly accept, as does the whole Committee, that the Government have taken the decision to accept Amendment 1, this residual area must be clarified before we proceed.

The Earl of Onslow: Briefly, all my House of Commons friends individually tell me that the morale of that House is absolutely terrible. They are shell shocked and shattered. They have been spat on by their constituents and ghastly things have happened to them. The vast majority of them are men of principle, and that applies to both sides of the House of Commons. They go into Parliament for service to their country. It is up to us, who are not as yet affected—and I hope we never will be—by the current vitriol, to try to help to give the House of the Commons back its self respect. In doing so, we must stick up for its Members' rights, because they are at the moment perhaps feeling a little frightened so to do.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: I find it strange that we are continuing this debate. I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, who was asking for lots of assurances on particular parts. I respect him, and respect even more my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. But surely a new clause right at the start saying "Nothing in this Act"—"nothing" is plain English; it could not be plainer—includes everything that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, adumbrated. Each thing is excluded because it says here "Nothing in this Act". I would have thought that we could get on to Clause 2 as quickly as possible.

Lord Elystan-Morgan: I raise a simple point. We always look at the Bill of Rights as something that created a massive, monumental right. It did not. It did not create anything. It declared rights that were already there, inherent in the very institution of Parliament. Indeed, the Bill of Rights is only one manifestation of those rights. They are wider than Article IX. The fact that they were spelt out in statute did not change them or confine them in any way at all.
	In 1840, Parliament passed the Parliamentary Papers Act, after Stockdale v Hansard. That in no way limited it rights; it merely declared rights that would have been there in any event, even if that declaratory instrument had not been made. Since it seems that those rights may well be wider than the Bill of Rights, I ask with great humility that the Government—I congratulate the Government; the noble Baroness the Leader of the House has placed the whole House of Lords in her debt through her decision on this matter—consider that the reference should be not just to the Bill of Rights but also to the parliamentary privileges of which the Bill of Rights is a manifestation.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I will clarify one point. What noble Lords have been saying is completely right: the issue relates to judicial review. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House made it clear at Second Reading, at col. 947 of Hansard, not only that there is no infringement of Article IX in the Bill but that a court faced with a judicial review would not be able to consider proceedings in Parliament because that would not be possible under Article IX. I completely agree with her.
	However, there could of course be judicial review. If I were to go on, I would explain how judicial review quite often arises in cases involving Article IX. Accepting Amendment 1—although it clearly says that nothing in the Act affects Article IX—does not resolve the underlying problems. I was attempting to explain that the courts have been resolving those problems clearly, and in a way that we should respect.

Lord Higgins: For some 10 years, until the last election, Lord Kingsland and I shared a very small room just off the Peers' Lobby. For much of that time I had grave concerns about his health but he fought back valiantly and continued to make a major contribution in the House of Lords. Perhaps I might therefore be allowed to say that, in 45 years' experience in both Houses of Parliament, he was among the finest debaters that I heard in either Chamber. He will be greatly missed not only today but in the future.
	I am sure we all very much welcome the amendment moved by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition and its acceptance by the Leader of the House. This, in effect, provides a safety net, but safety nets have holes in them. It would be quite wrong for us to assume that we can go ahead and not deal with the detailed provisions in the Bill, which raise serious questions about its relationship to the Bill of Rights, without clearing up those particular clauses. We cannot simply leave a lot of rubbish all over the place and say, at the end of the day, "Don't worry—the courts will have to take account of this safety net". That would be a very bad way of doing it. Who knows what cunning judicial arguments might be put forward, based on the fact that we have left the matter in an uncertain state in the Bill?
	The noble Baroness has been immensely helpful throughout, but we are still left with the view expressed by the Clerk of the Parliaments in his evidence, that there are main provisions in the Bill which—by leaving open the possibility of judicial examination in the House's internal rules—could threaten the principle of parliamentary privilege. It is quite clear that that is still the situation. The noble Baroness kindly wrote us a letter, to which she referred, on 13 July to assure us that, quite apart from the safety net, the proposals that she will now make will deal with the matter. I have some difficulty in understanding precisely what she has in mind. It is quite clear, she says, that:
	"Under the amendments, the IPSA will be responsible for determining the procedures",
	but not for "individual cases".
	So far, so good, but she goes on to refer to the other changes, which she argues will reassure us on these matters of parliamentary privilege, but it is somewhat confusing. To some extent we have problems because we now have too many commissioners and committees. It is certainly unclear from the noble Baroness's speech this afternoon to which commissioner she was referring. She just refers to "the commissioner", whereas there are at least two and probably more floating around the place. One would have thought that the arrangements that the noble Baroness has now proposed are open to some doubt. Her letter goes on:
	"These arrangements replicate those which presently exist, with the substitution of the new Commissioner for the present Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards".
	I am not clear why suddenly substituting the new commissioner—namely the one mentioned in the Bill—for the present commissioner for standards somehow solves all the problems. I am not at all clear as to what happens to the present parliamentary commissioner for standards; he appears to disappear into some limbo where no one thinks that he is relevant to these matters.
	The noble Baroness needs to spell out in rather more detail precisely how what she is now proposing will deal with the concerns regarding parliamentary privilege. For the reasons that I have mentioned, it is very important that we should accept amendments through the course of the Bill—on whatever the appropriate clauses are—to make sure that we are not left with what one might almost describe as the smile on the face of the Cheshire Cat after the Cheshire Cat has disappeared. That will not necessarily be completely protected as far as this amendment is concerned, much as I welcome it and its acceptance by the noble Baroness.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: Before my noble friend sits down, I assure him and the Committee that I cut my speech but I accept the point that my noble friend made that statutory ordinations, to which I referred, should be debated because that is of interest and help to another House. All I am saying is that this House should not impose them.

Lord Higgins: That may well be the case and my noble friend may be right.

Lord Lyell of Markyate: I listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said when he referred, as he did on Second Reading, to Pepper v Hart in which he and I took part. The question mark, which I do not think that he answered, about where there might be doubt in the Bill is well highlighted by the four amendments of my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, which deal with codes, investigations and recommendations of the new commissioner. Unless it is spelt out that those are proceedings in Parliament, and are covered by the relevant amendment, there may be doubt about that. It may be said that proceedings in Parliament comprise our debates and committee work, but that the work of the commissioner is in some way not a proceeding in Parliament. I would like to think that that was incorrect but it does not seem to me totally clear. I would be very grateful to hear what the noble Baroness the Leader of the House says about it.

Lord Strathclyde: Before the noble Baroness winds up the debate, I should point out that in her first speech she said three very important things. First, she said that she would accept this amendment, for which I am incredibly grateful. That is absolutely the right decision. I was surprised by it but it is entirely the right thing to do. Secondly, she said that she would accept the principle behind the second amendment. If she could put a bit more flesh on the bones of what she means by that, I will not move the second amendment. I think she said that she would bring back amendments on Report to make that clear. Thirdly, she said that she would tighten up the sunset clauses which the Government have already put down. That would be extremely helpful.
	I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, said on Second Reading that the Bill,
	"creates a danger of undermining"—[Official Report, 8/7/09; col. 688.]
	some of our constitutional safeguards. It is for that reason that I put forward this amendment. I look forward to hearing the noble Baroness's speech. After she has spoken and confirms what she has said, I shall be very happy with the amendment.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: First, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, that John Lyon, the existing parliamentary commissioner, will remain responsible for all issues relating to conduct. He will be responsible to the CSP. The IPSA commissioner will deal purely with financial breaches within the framework set out by IPSA. The IPSA commissioner is needed to take these issues out of the control of Parliament; so there are two commissioners, one within the remit of IPSA and the other the parliamentary commissioner, John Lyon. I trust that clarifies the situation.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: I have responded to the question.

Lord Higgins: The noble Baroness is short-handing this too much. I think that the parliamentary commissioner is quite another person, but at all events is she speaking of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards? It is very important to spell out the full title as we go along. If there is a parliamentary commissioner, I suspect that he has nothing to do with this.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My apologies for my shorthand. In future, there will be two commissioners. There will be a person known as "the commissioner"; he is the person who we are now setting up who will look at issues relating to IPSA. Then there is the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, who is currently John Lyon; he will continue to be the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. He is the person who will deal with all issues relating to conduct. There we have two commissioners. I hear the concerns expressed—

Lord Higgins: Is—

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: There is still confusion.

Lord Borrie: Perhaps I may help. Are not some noble Lords thinking of the parliamentary commissioner for administration, otherwise known as the ombudsman?

Lord Higgins: But is not the first person referred to by the noble Lord known as Commissioner for Parliamentary Investigations, to whom the noble Baroness has not referred at all?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: In the Second Reading debate it was probably made clear—and I beg your Lordships' pardon if it was not—that that person to whom the noble Lord just referred will henceforth be called, or known as, the commissioner. So that person whom the noble Lord referred to is the commissioner—

Lord Higgins: In Clause 1(3), the fact that "the Commissioner" is in brackets for purposes of ease of discussion does not alter his title, which is Commissioner for Parliamentary Investigations.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: Clause 1(3) states categorically:
	"There is to be an officer known as the Commissioner for Parliamentary Investigations ("the Commissioner")";
	hence my shorthand in calling that person the commissioner.
	I hear the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and I am grateful for his advice. However, we accepted the amendment because there are clearly such strong feelings in this House about the issue, which we did not want to obscure or to damage consideration of wider issues in the Bill. We agree that the amendment must be regarded as being for the avoidance of doubt, although we can see nothing in the Bill, as drafted, which affects Article IX; but we are happy to accept the amendment.
	I turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. There are a number of reasons why the Government consider that these amendments and the approach taken in them are not acceptable. First, they are at odds with the approach that the Government have taken to privilege and, I might say, at the urging of the other place and noble Lords. Since the removal in the other place of the provision explicitly dealing with privilege, our approach has been to ensure that the Bill does not affect parliamentary privilege in any way.
	That is one of the reasons why we have tabled government amendments in this House removing IPSA's recommendation and direction function, and the offence of paid advocacy. In short, the new scheme will not affect parliamentary privilege and, taking the views of noble Lords and the other place to their full extent, we have accepted Amendment 1. In other words, this Bill will explicitly not affect Article IX of the Bill of Rights—the key provision which deals with parliamentary privilege. However, the noble Lord's amendments would affect parliamentary privilege.
	The Government are bringing forward amendments to make it clear that the work of IPSA and the commissioner will be limited to administering the schemes on allowances and the code on financial interests, and making factual investigations about alleged breaches of either. The outcome of any such investigation will be passed either to the Committee on Standards and Privileges or to the police to take forward. The work of the committee—the Committee on Standards and Privileges—is, of course, already fully covered by Article IX.
	I have already mentioned that the offence of paid advocacy is removed. This means that IPSA and the commissioner will not deal with privileged subject matter. There is then, we believe, no need to extend the cloak of privilege around them.

Lord Campbell-Savours: I want to be helpful. Will my noble friend ask her officials to look at the Hamilton case where, if I recall correctly, Mohamed Al Fayed attempted to secure a judicial review of a decision by the Commissioner for Standards and Privileges in the House of Commons? I think that it was in 1999. The application failed, but the Government, having studied the judgment, might wish to revisit the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding.

Lord King of Bridgwater: The noble Baroness said that the Government would bring forward amendments to address some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. Could the noble Baroness say which amendments they are on the Marshalled List?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: I will come back to the noble Lord in a minute: I do not have that information to hand.

Lord King of Bridgwater: Are they on the Marshalled List?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: They are certainly on the Marshalled List.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Will the Leader of the House help me? The questions about judicial review will not go away. Does she agree with me, first, that decisions are judicially reviewable, as she has said already? Secondly, if that is the case, and if, for example, an officer of the House of Commons or the Commons itself were to act, through their disciplinary powers, in a way that involved a criminal charge or the destruction of a civil right, would that not raise problems that the courts would then have to resolve—a situation that is not solved by Amendment 1? This is the kind of question that noble Lords on all sides of the House are asking. That is the problem that the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege identified 10 years ago. It said that there had to be a parliamentary privileges Act, but there been no such Act—that is the problem that we face today.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: I am sure that is the problem that we must address today. I do not have an answer at the moment, but I will come back to noble Lords. In the debate, I have listened to the views of noble Lords who believe that the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, are necessary in order to safeguard privilege. I have also heard the advice of my noble friend that I should ask my officials to look at the case of Al Fayed v whoever in the 1990s. This is clearly an issue that I will wish to return to. I do not give any undertaking to reverse the Government's position, but I do undertake to investigate the matter thoroughly and come back.
	The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked me for more details about our reaction to Amendment 2. I hope that it will be acceptable if I deal with that now. The issue that I wish to return to on Amendment 2—the reason why I wish to see it withdrawn and to table another amendment—is that the Bill gives your Lordships a role in the administration of the new regime. The chair and members of IPSA, and the commissioner, may be removed from office only following an address by Her Majesty to both Houses of Parliament. I know that amendments have been tabled on this. The accounts and annual report of IPSA must be laid before each House of Parliament. Therefore, I wish to come back with an amendment that takes into consideration those parts of the Bill. However, I am wholly in agreement that we put in the Bill the fact that the vast majority of the Bill does not pertain to the House of Lords—it is just these two small points.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: Of course I accept the noble Baroness's assurance that she will look carefully at the first two of my four amendments—the others disappear with the disappearance of Clause 7, which I suspect that the Committee will accept later. I ask her to look at them carefully. I want to get to a position where the activities of the new bodies that we are setting up—IPSA and the commissioner—will not be justiciable, because they will be regarded as within the control of the House of Commons.
	I understand the noble Baroness's point. She wants to demonstrate to the public at large and to the media that these are independent bodies. As my noble friend Lord Higgins said, that needs to be clarified because at the moment it is not clear at all. If there is one issue that stands out above all others—indeed, it was the subject of the extremely helpful letter from the Clerk of the Parliaments—it is what is to be regarded as justiciable in the courts and what is not. At the moment, I am not clear on that, which is why I tabled the amendments.

Lord Strathclyde: I do not think that the Government have ever accepted one of my amendments made in opposition. There is certainly a little ray of sunshine at this Dispatch Box this afternoon and I am extremely grateful for the assurances that have been given by the noble Baroness.
	Amendment 1 agreed.
	Amendment 2
	 Tabled by

Lord Strathclyde: 2: Before Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
	"House of Lords
	Nothing in this Act shall affect the House of Lords."

Lord Strathclyde: I accept the noble Baroness's assurances. There are other amendments grouped with this one. I look forward to seeing her amendments and I hope that she will consult not just me but others who have amendments in this group. On that basis, I shall not move the amendment.
	Amendment 2 not moved.
	Clause 1 : Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority etc
	Amendment 3
	 Moved by Baroness Hamwee
	3: Clause 1, page 1, line 3, leave out "Parliamentary" and insert "House of Commons"

Baroness Hamwee: I shall speak to the Amendments 3 to 6 standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Shutt of Greetland. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who has just referred to them. I hope that, in considering how to deal with the noble Lord's amendment, the Leader of the House will also consider how to deal with the related point that we have raised.
	We are concerned to ensure that all the terminology used in the Bill relates only to the House of Commons, save for the role of this House with regard to the authority and the commissioner, to which the noble Baroness has just referred. I do not want to discuss the merits or demerits of any of this at this point but we are concerned not to make it at all easy simply to transfer this legislation to an application to this House, whatever the assurances given today, which I do not for one moment doubt. We want to be sure that there is no confusion either in the text of the legislation or in its title, to which the later amendments in this group relate.
	We propose to change the word "Parliamentary" to "House of Commons" in a number of places and also to change the acronym of the new authority. One of my noble friends suggested that IPSA had a good classical ring to it. I am sorry if we lose that, although it occurs to me that ICSA is more Greek than Latin, so the classicists might be consoled.
	The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, has amendments in this group and I look forward to hearing what he has to say. Perhaps I can ask him whether, in speaking to them, he can deal with the point about which my noble friends—particularly those who have come from the House of Commons—feel fairly strongly. I refer to the use of this House, which is far less partisan in its approach than the House of Commons sometimes is, in the removal of members of the authority and the commissioner, and that use perhaps being a good safety net. I beg to move.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: With your Lordships' permission, I shall treat Amendments 13A, 13B and 20B as being still grouped with Amendment 3 and the others that we are discussing at the moment. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House has already referred to these three amendments, which are all similar, and so has the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, from the Liberal Democrat Benches. The point of them is very simple, at any rate in comparison with the things we have been discussing. When it is suggested that the chair of IPSA or a member of IPSA or the Commissioner for Parliamentary Investigations should be removed from office, should that be solely a matter for the House of Commons or should it be a matter for this House as well? The appointment of these various people is to be done by Her Majesty but on the recommendation of the House of Commons in the various procedures set out. Only the Commons, not the Lords, is concerned with the appointments.
	It seems to me that all the matters under discussion are entirely matters concerning Members of the other place and that your Lordships should not be involved in a petition to the Queen to remove them. I think we should be placed in an awkward position if such an Address were to be moved to Her Majesty and the Commons agreed to it and then your Lordships were asked whether we agreed to it. Suppose we were inclined not to agree. We would get ourselves into a very peculiar position. It would be very difficult for us not to agree if the House of Commons had agreed that the appointment should be ended, so supporting an address to Her Majesty. If the Commons supported it when the particular person was entirely concerned with the Commons, it would be very difficult for us to make a different ruling. Without saying it is a matter of huge moment, or to press it too strongly, I suggest that we should consider whether these powers should be left to the Commons alone and that your Lordships should be taken out of the procedure for presenting an Address to Her Majesty.

The Earl of Onslow: This amendment seems to make complete sense. I have great sympathy with the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, has undertaken, more or less, to agree with Amendment 2 from the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. If that is the case, the Bill is nothing to do with us and concerns only the Commons. Therefore we probably should not do anything to interfere with it. If you put in the Bill only the words "House of Commons", there will be no confusion, as could be the case if you use the word "parliamentary".

Lord Campbell-Savours: I have reservations about the "not us, only them" approach to the Bill. The reality is that, in the longer term, the public will not stomach a two-tier structure whereby one end is perhaps subject to the criminal code and we are not. It is inevitable that, one day, we will have a Bill and it may not be the sort of Bill that we like. In reality, we would have to follow closely the arrangements which exist in the other place.
	The other day, I heard my noble friend's reference to the model. I think it was in response to an intervention. The reality is that the Commons model will, in the end, apply here. I would have thought that the clear undertakings my noble friend gave at the Dispatch Box last week—that as far she was concerned at the moment, and certainly under this Government, there would be no movement whatever in favour of the introduction of a Bill in this House—would be satisfactory. Although I am not prepared to go to the wire over my noble friend's undertaking that she will accept Clause 2—in other words, put it into the Bill—I think it is quite unnecessary for us to do so. Indeed, I think it sends out the wrong signal. As I say, it will appear to those outside as, "We don't want it. They can have it, but we will not have it", and I think that is the wrong approach to take.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: I hear the concerns expressed by my noble friend, who is very wise in his counsel. However, the Government are prepared to accept Amendment 2 in this slightly amended version. It is clear that the motivation for the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, come from a desire to make the matter even clearer in the Bill. I am not persuaded that that is necessary or appropriate. There is nothing necessarily wrong in using the word "parliamentary" to describe a body whose functions relate to the other place. To give one instance, there is the current non-statutory Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. I hope that noble Lords will consider that we have addressed the substance of their concerns by accepting Amendment 2.
	The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, are slightly different. They provide that this House would not be required to make an Address to remove from office the chair of IPSA, a member of IPSA, or the commissioner. The current provision means that such a person can be removed only on a Motion of Address from both Houses of Parliament. Although I accept that the position adopted by the noble Lord appears to be logical, that is in fact an important safeguard on the independence of those offices. It is imperative that this House must also approve any removal of those office-holders. Otherwise, the other place could be seen to be both judge and jury. It is worth noting that those measures build on the same procedures for removing members of the senior judiciary. It is an essential signal to the community that the independence of those persons is as important as the independence of the judiciary. I therefore ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: In the light of what the Leader of the House has said, I shall not move the amendments in my name when we reach them.

Baroness Hamwee: I am obviously disappointed with what the Leader of the House has had to say about our amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, referred to the signals sent out. It is the signal sent out by this terminology that concerns us. I do not for one moment disagree with him about public perception and the possibility that we may have to come back to it, but the question is what the "it" is in connection with this House. I do not detect an appetite at the moment to debate the detail of that. I hear what the noble Baroness has to say and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 3 withdrawn.
	Amendments 4 to 6 not moved.
	Amendment 7
	 Moved by Lord Tyler
	7: Clause 1, page 1, line 11, after "Committee" insert "("the Committee")"

Lord Tyler: The Committee may be relieved to hear that there are no great issues of principle in this group of amendments, in contrast to the two previous groups. These are simple matters of correction and clarity. There is a whole series of drafting problems in the Bill, which I suspect are a product of the speed at which the Bill has been produced. All that we are trying to do is to be helpful by pointing them out in the hope that the Minister will be able to accept them or, at least, commit to government amendments to deal with any defects on that basis.
	I shall briefly canter through the difficulties that we have encountered. First, on Amendment 7, it appears to us that there is no initial reference to the short title of the Speaker's Committee in Clause 1(5). The committee is, however, later referred to in subsection (6), so I anticipate that there is a need for clarity, although I understand that the Minister may be able to correct our correction, in that it is the view of officials that the correction should be in line 12, rather than in line 11 as it is in our amendment.
	Amendment 18 is a probing amendment. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain why the interim chief executive will need to incur expenditure on behalf of the whole of IPSA without the approval of its chair or other members. That would seem to be out of character with the normal procedures of a similar organisation. Worse still, in paragraph 15(2) of Schedule 1, an extraordinary permission is given to the interim chief executive—"to do other things". Other Members of your Lordships' House have much longer experience than I have, but I have been either in or out of Parliament for 35 years and watching legislation with considerable personal interest during that period. I do not recall ever seeing any organisation giving to its chief executive the ability "to do other things". What sort of other things have we in mind? It rather beggars belief and is slightly mind-boggling, if I may put it that way. I have never seen such a phrase before. What exactly are the other things? Perhaps the Government can indicate what they have in mind. If they want to be more specific, I hope that they may be able to come back on Report and tie this down more securely.
	Amendment 19 is again about drafting and no more. Paragraph 17(3) of Schedule 1 states:
	"The IPSA must make such arrangements as it considers necessary to ensure that".
	Ensure what? I can see the Minister nodding. I think that he, too, finds that a slightly curious way of expressing what seems to be in need of more careful formulation. We think that the Government mean that IPSA must make arrangements to ensure that it complies with paragraph 17(2), so that is what our amendment says; it does what it says on the tin.
	Finally, Amendment 22 omits the rather clumsy phrase,
	"as to which see further",
	which has the feel of an A-level response to a question where the student wants to sound more formal and authoritative than he or she feels has actually been the case in a hastily constructed essay. We assume that the Government simply mean "under", and that is what we have put.
	All these amendments are pretty straightforward. We are trying to tidy up a Bill that shows all the defects of hasty construction. That is what this House not only has an obligation to do, but, on the whole, is very good at doing. We hope that the Government will accept the amendments in this group. I beg to move.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: Amendment 18A is in my name. It has been listed in the next group, but it refers to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, was making. The Bill says:
	"The IPSA must make such arrangements as it considers necessary to ensure that".
	That seems to be meaningless and unnecessary. If IPSA's administrative arrangements must be carried out separately, of course it has to make the arrangements to obey sub-paragraph (2), so why does it need to be told to make the arrangements as well? Sub-paragraph (3) is unnecessary. If it is to remain, the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, would make it clearer than it is at the moment, but it is quite unnecessary.

Lord Strathclyde: The Government expect to get Royal Assent on the Bill within a week, yet here we are with my noble friend Lord Cope and the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, pointing out some fairly elementary drafting mistakes. I do not know whether the Minister will accept the amendments, but can he say whether he believes that these mistakes are important, whether he thinks that there may be some more in the Bill and whether the Government will bring forward further drafting amendments before Report?

Lord Swinfen: Amendment 7 refers to line 11 on page 1 and states,
	"after 'Committee' insert '('The Committee')'".
	That line has "Committee" in it twice. Which word is it to be inserted after?

Lord Tyler: I think that I said in my opening speech on this group that we understand that the appropriate place for this amendment is actually in line 12, at the end of the subsection, to make it absolutely clear. We understand that the Government are going to make that suggestion, but perhaps that has not yet reached the Minister.

Lord Bach: It will be a great pleasure to accept most of the amendments that have been so well spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and other noble Lords. As far as Amendment 7 is concerned, I am grateful to the noble Lord for telling me what I am going to say. He is right; it got to him slightly earlier than it got to me. Amendment 7 inserts a shorthand abbreviation for the committee on standards into the Bill. The amendment would insert the words "the Committee" so that the relevant provision would say, "There is to be a committee ('the Committee') known as the Speaker's Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority". I assume that noble Lords hope that that would make it clearer that the committee in subsection (6) is the same committee. Noble Lords are right—the committee in that subsection is the same committee—and, although I do not think it necessary to add words to clarify the subsection, I am happy to accept the amendment, subject to moving the insertion so that it is consistent with the rest of Clause 1. Now that I mention it, that is exactly the point that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, was getting at. We are happy to accept his amendment.
	I invite the noble Lord to let us take away Amendment 18 and see whether we can come up with another form of words, although I am not sure that I agree with him entirely about the phraseology of the schedule. Having listened to him, I do not think that he does not want the interim chief executive to be able to do anything that involved spending money. Giving an interim chief executive powers to spend money is absolutely standard when setting up a new body of this type. Indeed, it may be an essential part of the setting-up process. Once again, I draw attention to the need for this body to be seen as independent of both Parliament and the Executive.

Baroness Hamwee: When the Minister reconsiders Amendment 18, will he also consider whether there is any need to say anything at all about the interim chief executive? The chief executive will have powers. An interim chief executive is merely someone who is appointed before the permanent chief executive is appointed, so why the need to make any distinction?

Lord Bach: As I understand it, we want to get this institution up and running as fast as possible, perhaps before it is possible to go through the process of getting a chief executive into place.

Baroness Hamwee: I understand that, but as long as the institution is there, there should be no distinction between the first chief executive, who may simply be appointed to the position but not for very long, and the permanent chief executive, who will be the second appointment. This is not a big matter, but the Government are seeing problems where there may be none.

Lord Crickhowell: For once, I can come to the Minister's help in that I have set up and been a chairman of a public body—the National Rivers Authority—and I share the view that there is probably a need to set up an interim chief executive. The only difference when we set up the National Rivers Authority was that I was appointed first. The Liberal Democrats' point in moving the amendment—that it would probably be better if the chairman was appointed before the interim chief executive—is perfectly valid, but there is a need for interim arrangements when you are setting up a body, so we should not make too much of a fuss about it.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern: It is also worth pointing out that the chief executive is to be appointed by IPSA, whereas the interim chief executive, as I understand it, is appointed by the Speaker of the House of Commons. Some distinction has to be made to allow for that difference of appointment.

Lord Bach: I am most grateful to the noble Lord and the noble and learned Lord, who have come riding to my rescue on this issue. Although we will reconsider the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, because of its wording, I do not take the point about the interim chief executive because the arrangement may be essential in this case. The Speaker will no doubt look to appoint an interim chief executive as soon as possible after commencement to lead the work of setting up the new authority. In fact, we might be accused of being a bit negligent if we were not ready for an interim chief executive so that the body could be up and running.
	I propose to accept Amendment 19. Although the Bill could not be misconstrued, it is possible to approach the drafting differently and I thank the noble Lord for proposing the amendment, which would allow that. Noble Lords already know that Amendment 22 has been overtaken by government amendments removing the drafting to which they objected. When we come to it, I am minded to accept Amendment 18A in the next group, which is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for the reason that he stated.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am extremely grateful that the Minister should think of accepting my amendment, but if he accepts Amendment 19 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, Amendment 18A is not required. Perhaps I may put it the other way: if the Minister accepts Amendment 18A in my name, he rubs out the whole thing and the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, is not required. The Minister needs to give further thought to this. He cannot accept both of them, although he can accept one or the other. They achieve a similar effect.

Lord Bach: Which amendment to accept is a choice for Solomon. I am grateful, as always, to the noble Lord for his advice. Let us keep with this group for the time being. I have now spoken to the various amendments.

Lord Tyler: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. However, I should withdraw Amendment 7 because it is slightly defective in that it refers to the wrong line. I can obviously come back with a corrected amendment on Report or discuss with the Minister whether there is another way to deal with it. I am grateful to him for looking at Amendment 18 in a positive way and I hope that he will come back with another formulation to meet the concern that we have expressed. That would achieve the sort of clarity that we should seek. I do not think that he substantially dealt with the second point on sub-paragraph (2), which states:
	"The interim chief executive may incur expenditure and do other things in the name of and on behalf of the IPSA".
	It is a pretty messy and open-ended sort of statement to be on the face of a statute of the United Kingdom Parliament. I do not think that it is sufficiently tightly drawn. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw Amendment 7.
	Amendment 7 withdrawn.
	Amendment 8 not moved.
	Clause 1 agreed.
	Schedule 1 : Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
	Amendment 9
	 Moved by Lord Shutt of Greetland
	9: Schedule 1, page 10, line 10, leave out "four" and insert "seven"

Lord Shutt of Greetland: This group of amendments concerns the setting up of IPSA, which is what we had better call it now. Amendment 9 questions whether there will be sufficient people, whether this small group of four plus the chairman is sufficient and suggests that that number is increased. The amendment would increase the number of ordinary members of IPSA from four to seven. Under paragraph (1), at least one person must have held "high judicial office", one must be qualified,
	"to be an auditor for the National Audit Office",
	and one must have,
	"been a member of the House of Commons".
	Therefore, there is not much room for anyone else or anyone who might be called ordinary. I do not know whether "ordinary" is a good word, but, bearing in mind that the public seem to have an understandable concern about the subject matter of this Bill, the idea of having someone to represent what is well known as common sense could be helpful. We believe that IPSA is bereft of members, particularly if, under paragraph 12, it should exercise its discretion to form committees and sub-committees. With a membership of only five, the committees will be small and any sub-committees of a committee could end up with one member. That brings me to Amendment 16. If the Government do not agree to increase the number of members, the authority may find itself needing to look outside and to co-opting people to be members of committees and sub-committees.
	Amendment 10 would enable a current holder of a high judicial office to be a member. We do not understand why this post on IPSA is to be restricted to former members of the judiciary and we are concerned as to whether there is a large enough pool of qualified applicants.
	Amendment 12 addresses the length of time that must have elapsed since an applicant served as an MP as set out in paragraphs 1(4) and (5) of Schedule 1. Paragraph 1(4) states that one of the members of IPSA must be a former MP, to be known as "the Parliamentary member". Paragraph (5) does not prevent another former Member of Parliament from becoming a member of IPSA so long as they have not been an MP within the last five years. Should the parliamentary member be a more recent former MP or should they have been an MP within the five years prior to their appointment? What is the difference between the parliamentary member and any other ex MP who might become a member of the authority?
	Amendment 13 is a probing amendment about the phrase "fair and open competition". We agree absolutely that people should be appointed on merit, but will a large enough number of candidates put themselves forward given the requirements of the Bill and the specific points such as one member having to be a former holder of high judicial office, one a former MP and one a qualified auditor? Are we ruling out the possibility that, to use the term, a "head-hunter" may well be required?
	Amendment 14 seeks to leave out paragraph 1(10). It states that the IPSA must operate "efficiently and cost-effectively". I would not dare stand up in this place and suggest that the outfit should operate in any other way, but why has it been put in? Is this something we must watch out for in every single piece of legislation from this day forth? If the provision is not in, can a body be profligate? We do not understand why this has been put in the Bill, although it is difficult to say that it should be otherwise. However, it is a strange item to include since I would have thought that an outfit of this nature must in any event operate efficiently and cost-effectively.
	Amendment 15 is a further probing amendment to find out why the authority should not borrow money. We are not to know why not. I suppose that if the money has not come through and the authority needs to pay expenses or even the members' salaries, I do not understand why it is specifically denied the business of borrowing money.
	The final amendment we have tabled in this group is Amendment 20, which is to ask why IPSA should retain any money that it receives from repayments made by MPs. Why is such money to be retained? Is it to be kept in order to have a party or to be retained on the basis that less will be needed the next time there is a subvention to pay normal expenses? Quite frankly, if money is repaid, I would have thought that it should go back to central government. I beg to move.

Lord Crickhowell: I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, would raise a point I referred to in my speech at Second Reading and which was the subject of comment by the Constitution Committee of this House. Noble Lords may recall that I expressed anxiety about the political balance of the committee. I thought that the noble Lord was going to say that he wanted more members so that there would not be just one former Member of Parliament as the parliamentary member. The anxiety is that if you have only one, it is just possible that he would turn out to hold strong views which represent just one political party, and that might be unfortunate.
	There is a case for having at least one other member of IPSA so that it is possible to have perhaps two former Members of Parliament on the committee. As this matter was raised by the Constitution Committee in its report, it should be addressed. As the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, has not raised it, I suggest it ought to be considered further. I would like to know the Minister's response on the issue.

Baroness Butler-Sloss: I wish to raise two practical points, one of which is a question to the Minister. Paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 1 states:
	"At least one of the members of the IPSA must be a person who has held (but no longer holds) high judicial office".
	Is it intended that there should be an age limit for members of IPSA? If it is, and if the age limit is 70, you will not be likely to get many judges because they do not have to retire until the age of 70. Therefore the Government might consider whether it should be someone who is holding high judicial office rather than someone who has retired. As the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, said, there might be a very small pool from which to gather the member of high judicial office.
	Secondly, in supporting seven instead of five, paragraph 12 on "Committees" states:
	"The IPSA may establish any committees which it considers appropriate",
	and,
	"Any committee ... may establish one or more sub-committees".
	But,
	"All members of a committee or sub-committee must be members of the IPSA".
	If you have got only five, you will not have many sub-committees; you will have a sub-committee of the whole committee.

Lord Woolf: I echo the point as to age that has just been made by my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss. But a word of warning: it would not be desirable for someone who holds high judicial office to be on IPSA. We have already referred to the sensitivity of the position of the courts in relation to this legislation, and to have a person who is serving in high judicial office would look rather inappropriate.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I support the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf; it would be quite inappropriate for a serving judge to hold the position. I would hope that if the person appointed held or was entitled to hold high judicial office, they would be endued with a degree of common sense, which is the other requirement the noble Lord had in mind.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: After that row of contributions from persons who have held high judicial office, perhaps I may turn the Committee's attention to some more of this ragbag of small but important points that are being negotiated here. Amendment 19A seeks to delete from paragraph 18(2)(b) of Schedule 1 the words,
	"(except as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above)".
	This section of the Bill attempts to separate administrative functions and regulation functions—paragraph 18(1) defines administrative functions and paragraph 18(2) defines regulation functions—so as to distribute them between the IPSA and its staff. The last line of sub-paragraph (1) states that among the administrative functions is,
	"the function of maintaining and publishing the register under section 5".
	However, I cannot see that IPSA has a duty under Clause 5 to maintain the register, but it does to publish. The clause says that it has to prepare a code and goes into a lot of particulars about how it is to go about that and how the code is to be approved and so on. It also says that the code must require Members to register the information, but it does not say that IPSA has to keep the register. It is fairly obvious that it will keep the register, which is part of its whole purpose, but the drafting might have become a little confused there. It is worth another look.
	The next of my amendments in the group, Amendment 19D, relates to funding and how the Speaker's committee has to review its estimate each year. Paragraph 22(4) of Schedule 1 states:
	"If it is not satisfied, the Committee must make such modifications as it considers necessary to achieve consistency".
	But it does not say consistency with what. Is it consistency with the previous year—accountants do like to ask, "How does that compare with the same period last year?"—or is it consistency with some other bodies or quangos, or is it consistency with something else; for example, Treasury rules? "To achieve consistency" does not seem enough. Perhaps it is internal consistency between different parts of the estimate. It is not clear with what consistency in mind the committee has to propose modifications. In fact, the provision limits the committee to making modifications which achieve consistency with something or other, but not modifications that achieve inconsistency. Perhaps that is all it needs, but the drafting is not very clear.
	Amendment 19E raises a very small point. The Bill states that,
	"the Committee must consult the Treasury and have regard to any advice given".
	I thought that "consider any advice given" might be better, but the difference in meaning is very slight and I would not press it.
	Amendment 20A is concerned with what the Commissioner for Parliamentary Investigations will be paid. The Bill says that terms and conditions will be determined by the Speaker. I suggest that the Speaker should not be left entirely untrammelled in this matter, but that we should insert,
	"after consulting the Senior Salaries Review Board",
	after "determined by the Speaker".

Lord Borrie: The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, referred to the funding paragraph in the schedule, paragraph 22, and criticised sub-paragraph (4), which states:
	"If it is not satisfied, the Committee must make such modifications as it considers necessary to achieve consistency".
	He asked, "Consistent with what?" I read it as being the previous sub-paragraph, which states:
	"The Committee must review the estimate and decide whether it is satisfied that the estimate is consistent with the efficient and cost-effective discharge by the IPSA of its functions".

Lord Cope of Berkeley: The noble Lord is a lawyer; I am not. That may be the correct interpretation, but it seemed to me odd when I read it.

Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope: Perhaps I may add to the fine print of the important points raised in Amendment 9, in relation to the numbers that affect the timing of the appointment of the IPSA. I assume that the target date for the body taking effect is the beginning of the financial year in 2010, which is a relatively short time. If it is not to take effect and take control of the functions in the Bill by the beginning of the financial year 2010, there will be a very unfortunate interregnum. I would like to hear it confirmed, just so that we all know where we are, that the target date for the start of this body is 1 April 2010. If that is the case and we are thinking about appointing members to IPSA on the basis of "fair and open competition" the Appointments Commission would surely have to be involved. The full panoply of the statutory rules and regulations that it applies to public appointments is necessary to be able to say with certainty that four or five of the seven members—however many they may be—are appointed on merit on the basis of fair and open competition. We would need to use its good offices. In that case, some of the important points that have been raised about the small pool of people from which these candidates can be drawn become even more important. There will be real problems in getting this organisation up and running, with its interim chairman, full-time chairman and chief executive, in time for it to start at the beginning of the financial year 2010.

Lord Campbell-Savours: In terms of considering numbers, I think that we might be a little premature. We are not altogether clear what IPSA's final responsibilities will be. There are many people in the Commons who still believe that by the time this Bill has cleared all its stages, IPSA will be little more than an outsourced fees office for the House of Commons. I think it is highly unlikely that we will want a top-heavy organisation, so perhaps we might consider the question of size a little later in the Bill's proceedings.

Lord Bach: There are a number of amendments to deal with in this group. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, asked when IPSA will be set up. The answer is not necessarily particularly helpful, but it will be set up as soon as is practicable after Royal Assent. That does not necessarily mean 1 April 2010. His next question will probably be to ask when members of IPSA will be appointed. The answer is that this, too, will be done as soon as is practicable after Royal Assent. However, it is important that IPSA is set up as quickly as possible.
	I shall be asking the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, to withdraw his amendment in due course but before doing so I shall go through the other amendments in his name and explain my reasons. We have made it clear that these measures apply to the House of Commons only—that is the starting point. Some of the amendments deal with the financing arrangements for the body. We all know that financial matters are really for the Commons and not for this House. The other place is content with these proposals. There was, quite rightly, a good debate on these proposals in this House and in the other place. However, following a number of technical amendments made in the other place, the proposals were agreed without a Division.
	On the specific proposals, we believe that to increase the number of members of IPSA, with the consequential amendments that would flow from that, would add to its costs at the same time as the Committee is agreeing to reduce its functions. The public need to be assured that our response to the recent problems is proportionate and efficient, as well as effective. I note what the noble Lord says about the need to ensure that there is always a good number of members present at meetings and the resulting need to have some spare members. A body has to be designed with its functions in mind. This body will have functions in relation to a group of people which is limited in number. The issues it may have to deal with may be complex, and they will certainly be high profile, but they will arise only in relation to that limited group. IPSA will need enough members to enable it to carry out its functions properly, but that consideration must be balanced against the need for it to be responsive. A body as large as eight is likely to become more inefficient and more unwieldy, although I take the noble Baroness's second point about committees and sub-committees.
	Amendments 10 and 11 reverse a decision taken by the other place, which decided that the serving holder of high judicial office should not be a member of IPSA but that it wanted someone who had experience at that level. The point made was that a serving member of the judiciary was unlikely to be able to devote the required time to the functions. I want to add to that; I agree with the noble and learned Lords, Lord Woolf and Lord Mackay of Clashfern, that it would be a mistake to have a serving judge sitting on IPSA, not just because they are busy people in any event but because in principle it would not be appropriate.
	The number of senior judiciary is deliberately limited by legislation, and it was thought that provisions such as this would only increase the demand on senior judiciary. We therefore agreed to amend the Bill to remove the possibility that a serving judge could be a member of IPSA, and we think that that is the right decision. I am happy to tell the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that there is no age limit at all—all retired judges who are interested, please take note.
	It is implicit in paragraph 1(5) that the parliamentary member should have recent parliamentary experience. We do not feel that it is necessary to spell this out in paragraph 1(4) as well. We can see why the noble Lord seeks to ensure that the member must have recent experience, but it does not seem wise to limit the provision in that way. There may be occasions when the most suitable candidate has not been a Member of the other place for six years, and we would not wish them to be disqualified just for that; we want to rely on the selection of the most meritorious candidate.
	I take the point that the noble Lord opposite made about political bias. One hopes that whoever is chosen will not show any such bias and it is unlikely that they would, but there is no reason why there should not be more than one ex-Member of Parliament on the body; the Bill says that there has to be at least one member who has recently been a Member of the House.
	I know that these were probing amendments, but we find it strange that the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, should wish to remove a requirement that the members of IPSA should be appointed on the basis of fair and open competition. It is an important part of the overall scheme that the new IPSA should be both independent and transparent, and that independence and transparency needs to start with the process of appointing its members. The requirement means that any competition for selection as a member of IPSA should not be restricted to a limited ground of candidates, and the selection process itself should be fair.
	The noble Lord appeared prepared to see IPSA not acting efficiently and cost-effectively. I am sorry, that is the wrong way of putting it; that would be on the basis that it was not a probing amendment, but of course it is. Rather, he wanted to raise that topic in Committee today, and I shall give him an answer. The requirement, not necessarily in the Bill, would enable IPSA to borrow money, and he asks why we have reached the decisions that we have on this. It is because the provisions are requirements that are found elsewhere for bodies of this kind. It is surely not objectionable that, in carrying out its functions, IPSA must do so with regard to the costs that it will incur and the efficiency with which it will achieve outcomes. Because it will be a small body, however, we do not see any need for it to be able to borrow money.
	Lastly, the provision allowing IPSA to retain money it receives and apply it to its functions is also a standard, sensible provision. IPSA may receive repayments of money that has been paid out under the allowance scheme in error. In many cases, that may be dealt with by setting the overpayment off against the next payment due, but that might not always be the case. Instead of requiring that the payments are returned to the Consolidated Fund, the Bill provides that IPSA can keep the payments and use them to pay out allowances to other Members of Parliament.
	On the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, I have come to a view about Amendment 18A, about which I spoke a little prematurely following his lead in the previous group. I prefer Amendment 19, so if the noble Lord would be kind enough to withdraw his amendment in due course, I would be grateful.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I return to the Minister's point, which he made off the cuff, understandably, and without looking at his text. He said that in his recollection the schedule says that at least one of the members of IPSA must be a person who has been but is no longer a Member of the House of Commons, it actually says "one of the members". I suppose that it is intended to make a distinction with the preceding sub-paragraphs, which say that "at least" one of the members must be a person who has held high judicial office, and that "at least" one of the members must be a person who is qualified under Schedule 3, and so on. A distinction seems to be intended there, and the Minister might like to look at that and clear it up when convenient.

Lord Bach: This may, again, be a matter of drafting. I have just been advised that it does mean a minimum of one of the members, so the phrase "at least"—which appears, as the noble and learned Lord rightly points out, in the subsection—should really apply to subsection (4) as well. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for having pointed that out.

Lord Woolf: It might be convenient if I mention one more matter at this stage; I recognise that this is not necessarily a conventional way of doing so, because it is a rather general point. The Minister emphasised in what he said that cost is a consideration which should be taken into account with regard to IPSA. We were also talking earlier about having two commissioners in this field in the other place. If the matter is being looked at again, I urge the Minister to take back for consideration, now that the Bill has been slimmed down, the idea that there might be considerable advantages in not having two commissioners, for the good reason that the existing commissioner has been the subject of a decision of the Court of Appeal—which I confess was presided over by myself—to the effect that he is not subject to judicial review in exercising his functions. I apprehend from what has been said in this Committee that that would be looked at with favour.
	Another reason is that, from the limited experience I had when I was chairman of the subcommittee in this House dealing with Lords' interests, the person in the position of the commissioner will, over time, develop expertise as a result of exercising his office. There will always be a subjective quality to that in these matters. The one thing that I would have thought that the other place would not want is the two commissioners that they have created coming to different decisions in this area.
	There may be a very good reason of which I am simply unaware why it was felt necessary to have two commissioners. However, it seems to somebody wishing to take forward the idea of efficient, effective and economic operation of this new body, and when one looks at a Bill which is now so different from what it was, that something is being created that might be over-egging the pudding, creating an undesirable complication with conflicts of jurisdiction over the same issues.

Lord Bach: I am, as always, very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his observations. Obviously they have been heard not just by me but by my noble friend the Leader of the House. I will take away the noble and learned Lord's suggestion and comments and come back in due course with an answer for him.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: Would the Minister give way on another point? It may be regarded as the sort of wild contingency that would appeal to AP Herbert. It may also be the case that those in your Lordships' House today who have held high judicial office would say that it was impossible for any of them ever to have previously been a Member of Parliament. However, it seems possible that somebody could satisfy both sub-paragraphs (2) and (4) of paragraph 1. In those circumstances, would that one person be sufficient to fulfil both obligations?

Lord Bach: The noble Lord has got the better of me: I have no clue as to the answer to his question, but I think that I know people who could find out for me. I am grateful to the noble Lord.
	I return to attempting to deal with the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley. On Amendment 19A, we understand the desire of the noble Lord and the Committee not to have superfluous wording in Acts of Parliament. However, we do not think that these words are superfluous. It is important to make it clear that there is no contradiction between the provisions of paragraph 18(1), which sets out the administrative functions of IPSA in relation to the Register of Members' Interests, and the provisions of paragraph 18(2), which sets out the regulatory functions in relation to the code as a whole. It is helpful to make clear the distinction by including the words that the noble Lord objects to. On that basis, I ask him to consider not pressing that amendment.
	As far as Amendment 19D is concerned, I think that my noble friend Lord Borrie dealt with the point about consistency, so I will rely on his argument for that.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: I have listened with great care and am full of admiration for the Minister, who is answering, and the noble Lords who have asked these questions. I wonder whether the aim of Amendment 19D to paragraph 22(4) could be achieved with the words "considers necessary to achieve such consistency". Then it would clearly refer back to the previous sub-paragraph. I think that that is what the Bill is supposed to mean.

Lord Bach: I am very grateful to the noble Lord. We will take that away and consider that possible minor, but helpful, amendment.
	Amendment 19E would, if accepted, weaken the regard that the Speaker's Committee should have to the advice of the Treasury in finalising the estimate. The committee is not required to accept the advice in any event. It can reject it but must prepare a statement of reasons if it does so. I point out that the wording of this part of the schedule mirrors that which applies to the Electoral Commission. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that the other place considered these provisions; there was an extended debate on Schedule 1. The amendments also deal with the funding of a public body and with an estimate that will be a parliamentary estimate, not a departmental estimate. Without for a moment suggesting that it is not for this Committee today to debate these matters, I think that this is one of those matters that are—it could be argued—pre-eminently House of Commons business.
	Finally, Amendment 20A would require the Speaker to consult the Senior Salaries Review Body in setting the terms and conditions of the independent commissioner. There is no proposal for a similar amendment to the identical provision in relation to the members of IPSA. We are not convinced that the Speaker should consult the Senior Salaries Review Body. It has nothing to do with the work of the independent commissioner. We think that the Speaker is perfectly capable of taking advice about other comparable positions without specifying it in the Bill, so we do not see the case for making a specific reference to the SSRB in this case. Clearly, terms and conditions of employment go well beyond salaries.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: I am grateful to the Minister for his response to the amendments standing in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The Minister's fundamental point concerned the expense of increasing the body's membership by three people. I would not have thought that we were talking about serious money in that regard, particularly bearing in mind the importance of the issue.
	I listened to the exchanges that took place on former MPs. It strikes me that all five of these people could be former MPs. I see no reference to qualifications that the chairman may or may not hold. Certainly, some former MPs have held high judicial office and I am sure that some former MPs have been auditors. All of them could be former MPs. That is slightly worrying in the sense that MPs are saying that they want to distance themselves from this process. I have difficulty with the issue of the sovereignty of Parliament, but they are saying that they want to distance themselves from these matters and put them in the hands of other people. I am not convinced that the public would consider that the body was sufficiently distanced from the process if all its members were former MPs. The Minister may care to think about that a little more. Nevertheless, on the basis of the answer that I have received today, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 9 withdrawn.
	Amendments 10 to 18A not moved.
	Amendment 19
	 Moved by Lord Tyler
	19: Schedule 1, page 13, line 36, leave out "ensure that" and insert "comply with sub-paragraph (2)"
	Amendment 19 agreed.
	Amendment 19A not moved.
	Amendment 19B
	 Moved by Lord Bach
	19B: Schedule 1, page 14, line 10, leave out "6(6)" and insert "6(5)(b), (5B)(c), (6) and (7)"

Lord Bach: This group of amendments deals with the changes to the investigation and enforcement regime that the Government have brought forward. During the passage of the Bill, there has been considerable concern about the impact of its provisions on parliamentary privilege, particularly each House's right to freedom of speech and exclusive cognisance of its own affairs. As has been said, the events disclosed by the Daily Telegraph in relation to the other place have made it impossible to continue with the old system of self-regulation. The public will clearly no longer tolerate a regime where the other place sets, administers and investigates breaches of its own allowances and the rules on the registration of financial interests. I think that that is also the view of this Committee. Those powers do not deal with matters that are presently privileged.
	We have always recognised, however, that it is a different question in relation to enforcement. The Bill as originally drafted took a particular approach in trying to steer the narrow line between enabling the commissioner and IPSA to do their work and not infringing privilege. That approach did not find favour in the other place and your Lordships remain concerned about how it is handled in the Bill, as it was sent up here by the other place. We remain of the view that many of the concerns expressed, particularly about the extent to which the courts would decide that they now had the right or duty to inquire into matters that would previously have been regarded as privileged, were to an extent exaggerated, but we recognise that those concerns are real.
	The package of measures in the government amendments in this group—although there are also opposition amendments in the group, to which I shall reply after they have been spoken to—responds to those concerns by removing any role for IPSA in the enforcement of the new allowances regime or the code of conduct on financial interests in individual cases. IPSA will remain responsible for setting the allowances regime and for the payment of MPs' salaries and allowances. It will be responsible for setting the code of conduct on financial interests and for administering the register of financial interests. IPSA will retain responsibility for the procedures under which alleged breaches of the financial rules can be investigated. Those, we think, are the core principles of independent oversight and regulation of MPs' financial affairs which the public ask for and which we have promised.
	An independent statutory commissioner will also be responsible for investigating complaints that MPs have breached the rules of the allowances regime or the rules on registration of interests. Those arrangements remain unchanged. The amendments make changes in what happens to the outcome of the commissioner's investigations. Amendment 43A provides that the commissioner must refer his or her findings to the Committee on Standards and Privileges, rather than to IPSA. The amendment redrafts what was inserted in the other place as subsection (5), but maintains its effect in allowing minor cases to be settled by the commissioner without reference to the committee, provided that any general conditions fixed by IPSA are met and the Member acknowledges the error and agrees to repay the overpayment or correct the entry in the register, as appropriate.
	New subsection (5C) is a revised approach to the duty of the MP to provide information to the commissioner, which was included in subsection (3) of Clause 6 and for which the sanctions were previously covered in subsections (5) and (6) of Clause 7. Rather than setting out the duty on the MP to provide information, the commissioner will be able to report a finding to the Committee on Standards and Privileges if the Member of Parliament chooses not to co-operate.
	The other change to which I wish to draw the Committee's attention are the additions to the requirement for the procedures that IPSA must draw up. Following concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, and other noble Lords, we propose including a specific right for Members of Parliament who are subject to an investigation to be heard in person by the commissioner, as well to make representations, and a right, in appropriate circumstances, to call and examine witnesses.
	I have not gone through in detail the individual impact of each element of this group of government amendments. I hope that what I have said will find favour with the Committee. Most of the amendments that I have not referred to are consequential on the main government amendments in the group. I beg to move.

Lord Goodhart: I will speak to the amendments in this very large group that are in my name and those of my noble friends. The government amendments to Clause 6 in this group make a considerable improvement to the clause and we therefore support them. It was wrong that IPSA, the body that makes the code, should also have been responsible for its enforcement, and having IPSA intervening between the commissioner and the Committee on Standards and Privileges could have caused serious delays and additional expense. Therefore, we welcome Amendment 19B and the others tabled by the Government. In referring to "the commissioner", I am of course referring to the Commissioner for Parliamentary Investigations and not the commissioner for the commissioning of parliamentary commissions, or any other commissioner who might be floating around.
	Amendment 33 to Clause 4, in the names of my noble friends Lord Shutt and Baroness Hamwee, provides that IPSA must review its determinations that a claim should be wholly or partly refused. The amendment states that IPSA must decide on the process for reviewing its determination and should submit the process that it has decided on to the Speaker's Committee. It is desirable that the process should be given the widest possible circulation and it would be appropriate to do that by the method suggested.
	Amendment 43 proposes that IPSA should give guidance to Members on the records that they should keep. Again, that is a sensible course, which would be of assistance to Members.
	Amendments 43B and 43D are probing amendments. Government amendment 43A provides, in proposed subsections (5)(b) and (5B)(c) to Clause 6, that conditions should be specified by IPSA. It is not clear what these conditions are and how and when they are to be imposed. I imagine that they are not to be part of the code itself. Are they a new free-standing power? If so, how is that power to be exercised? Are the conditions to be of general application or could they be imposed for a single investigation? The most reasonable formula is to require any condition imposed under the new government amendments to be made as part of the procedures under existing Clause 6(6). In this case, it should be made clear that the conditions are made as part of the procedure that will be determined by IPSA under that subsection. If that is not the basis for imposing the conditions, a new power is being given to IPSA and the basis and limitation of that power must be explained.
	Amendment 48 has been overtaken by the government amendments, which we will support. There remains the problem that there is no provision either in the Bill or in the government amendments for what should happen if the investigation clears the Member who is its subject of any misconduct. Will this not be referred to the Committee on Standards and Privileges or does it have to be referred to the committee for information? That should be covered in the Bill, but it is not.
	I turn to Amendments 50, 51 and 52. Clause 8(6) refers to investigations. It states:
	"The procedures must, in particular, provide a member who is the subject of an investigation or complaint with an opportunity—
	(a) to make representations to the Commissioner about the investigation or complaint;
	(b) to make representations to the IPSA".
	The complaint is relevant only as one of the possible triggers for investigation under Clause 6(2)(d). Is it intended that, where the complaint is made by an individual under Clause 6(2)(d) but not in other circumstances, Members will be able to make representations to the commissioner that no investigation should be started and will then be able to make representations again when the investigations are carried out? That is not in itself unreasonable but, if so, why not allow pre-investigation representations in cases triggered by Clause 6(2)(a), which concerns investigations on the commissioner's initiative, or those triggered by subsection (2)(c) concerning investigations at the request of IPSA? On the other hand, should it be left for the commissioner to decide whether to proceed without the Member who is proposed for investigation necessarily having a right to make representations at that stage?
	Finally, we welcome the exclusion of Clause 7 from the Bill. We think that that is an important step forward. Consequently, the Committee will no doubt be glad to hear that I shall not speak to Amendments 54, 55, 57, 64, 65, 68 or 69, which are tabled in my name, although my noble friend Lord Tyler will speak to Amendment 75.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: It may be appropriate for me to follow the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, although—and in this there is no sense of criticism of him—I shall be somewhat shorter. I simply want to talk about what was nearly his penultimate point concerning the reference in government Amendment 43A to "such other conditions".
	I was struck that at this stage it is impossible for the commissioner or IPSA to define all the circumstances in which they will find themselves becoming involved. Any reader of the Daily Telegraph would have recognised that there was an almost infinite variety of circumstances in which they might find themselves involved. Therefore, I do not think that it is unreasonable that in this clause the commissioner may have regard to,
	"such other conditions as may be specified by the IPSA".
	That is referred to in proposed new subsection (5)(b) in Amendment 43A and, similarly, in relation to financial interests, proposed new subsection (5B)(c). However, it seems important that these provisions should not be absolutely at large. Therefore, I suggest that it would be an improvement if the word "reasonable" were added before the word "conditions" in both places, so as to read "such reasonable conditions". The insertion of that word would simply act as a signal that, if the commissioner and IPSA found themselves with a case which might arouse strong emotions because people had behaved very badly, they should not be allowed to introduce vindictive conditions but, rather, reasonable conditions.
	Going back to what I said earlier in the debate on Amendment 1, which the noble Baroness the Leader of the House was so readily willing to look at again, if we establish that none of these activities is justiciable, then it will not be for a court to decide whether something is reasonable. Of course, if a court were looking at the case, it would have to take that into account. If, in the end, the noble Baroness does not accept my amendments which were grouped with my noble friend's Amendment 1, then it is conceivable that this could be justiciable, in which case the word "reasonable" would be an indication to the court that it would have to apply some judgment as to whether the conditions were or were not reasonable. I hope that we will not reach that position and that we will be able to get to the point where the court is not involved with any of these matters—a view held, I think, by a large number of noble Lords in all parts of the House. However, we have not got there yet, and I hope that the Government will be able to accept the insertion of the word "reasonable".

Baroness Butler-Sloss: In order to try to make Amendment 43A and Clause 6 work, I have one question for the Minister and some concern about what remains of Clause 6. As the commissioner will be referring his findings to the House of Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges, am I right in thinking that it will then be a matter for that committee, with complete freedom, to make such decisions as it thinks appropriate to deal with a referral from the commissioner? This lies uncomfortably with a considerable part of Clause 6, because Clause 6 seems to do two separate things: one is that the commissioner investigates and the other that IPSA takes a role. I get the impression that Amendment 43A is taking over. If I am right, then you would not require the commissioner to report to IPSA under subsection (4) and I would assume that subsections (7) and (8) would be irrelevant because those are the jobs of IPSA and not of the commissioner. It looks to me as though most of Clause 6 should come out and that the duties of the commissioner should take over largely from the duties of IPSA.

The Earl of Onslow: Perhaps the noble Lord on the Front Bench can help me. Unlike some other noble Lords, I am somewhat clueless, a word frequently used by the Front Bench opposite. Could they please explain to me what happens if IPSA makes a finding, an MP is reported to the Committee on Standards and Privileges in the House of Commons and he says, "I didn't do it, guv"? That committee would then have to make a judgment and it may or may not overturn what IPSA has done so, bingo, out of the window goes a totally independent body. Is that right?

Lord Cope of Berkeley: I have two amendments in this group. Amendment 48B suggests that the Speaker of the House of Commons should be consulted when IPSA determines the procedures. He is to be consulted when the code is fixed and he is to be consulted on various other matters throughout the Bill but he is not to be consulted about the procedures. I think he should be, not merely the Leader of the House and the others mentioned.
	I shall not pretend that I have absolutely mastered all the amendments that the Government are making to the Bill but I think that Amendment 74A has become a consequential amendment, at least in part, to some of the amendments which the Government are making. At present, the wording says that nothing should prevent the House of Commons exercising any of its disciplinary powers, otherwise than following an investigation. We do not want its disciplinary powers to be limited following an investigation either, so why not knock out the words from "otherwise" onwards? That would make the drafting a shade clearer. Those who drafted this Bill have done a fantastic job in the time available but the drafting is not of a quality which we normally expect from parliamentary counsel. I am sure that is because of the timeframe. Some of it is obscure, as I have tried to show, and I think we have made some improvements not only to the policy but also to the drafting.

Earl Ferrers: Perhaps the Minister could clarify one small point which is simple compared with all the other problems he has been given this afternoon. On about three occasions, he mentioned the enforcement powers. "Enforcement" is a very strong word which I do not like because it has the sniff of the jackboot about it. I once received a letter at home from Norfolk County Council which on one side said "Norfolk County Council" and in a jazzy way, "working for the people of Norfolk", and on the other side it said, "Rural Enforcement Agency". One title is nice and democratic and the other is dictatorial and unpleasant. Who will enforce what on whom? I can only assume that it is Members of Parliament, those people who have been elected to the House of Commons, which always used to be regarded as the highest place in the country. Now they are having something enforced on them. What is to be enforced on them, who will do the enforcement and how?

Lord Tyler: My noble friend Lord Goodhart and I tabled Amendment 75, not being quite aware at that stage whether the Leader of the House was to move the inclusion or exclusion of Clause 7. It is only right that we should look at this issue, even if only for complete clarity at this stage. I remind the Committee that this deals with the enforcement section of the Bill, Clause 7(11), which refers to a Member of the House being expelled. It is important for us to put down a marker on yet another issue about the great relationships of our parliamentary system. A good deal of the debate so far has been concerned with the relationship between the House of Commons and the new parliamentary standards authority. Amendment 75 is about reasserting the relationship between Parliament and the authority on the one hand and the public on the other. The amendment says in a new subsection following subsection 11:
	"The expulsion of a member from the House of Commons in exercise of the powers of the House under subsection (6) shall not prevent the member from standing for re-election".
	In parenthesis, perhaps I should say that I have subjected myself to the will of the electorate on rather a lot of occasions and have been successful on only six. I am sure that others in the Committee can beat that record. I have even been unsuccessful in a by-election, so I suppose I should declare that interest. It was the Beaconsfield by-election in 1982 when the Labour candidate was even less successful; a certain Mr Anthony Charles Lynton Blair. That is by the way.
	The point about this amendment is that surely we should re-establish the principle that the final judge should be the electorate. We should not forget that. Therefore, we believe that it is extremely important to realise that there will be a subjective judgment, whether by the committee or even by the whole House, on the advice of IPSA, to take away the livelihood of a Member of Parliament but, more importantly, potentially to take away from the electorate the right to decide who their representative is to be. That is a subjective judgment and all judgments are subjective. What if the electors in that constituency disagree? It may be very unlikely but it is possible. Surely we must ensure in the Bill that we do not prevent a popular but censured Member of Parliament from re-standing in any by-election. There has rightly been a great deal of discussion about parliamentary privilege but that is always subject to the will of the people in a parliamentary democracy, the right of the public, as is their privilege, to elect whomsoever they like to represent them in Parliament.
	I suppose our amendment is a probing amendment but it is important to re-establish the principle that in the end it is the electors who decide, not some scrutiny panel set up by the political parties which can turn into a kangaroo court or a star chamber. Neither of those gives us confidence in the way in which these things should be handled, particularly if they are peopled by the Whips, the hierarchy of the party, who may find some individual MPs rather less convenient than others. There are apparently some 30 Conservative seats now up for grabs and so rapid have been recent decisions and announcements of retirements that the selection rules have been suspended for the time being to allow other considerations to take their place. At the very least, it would be appropriate to ensure that, if this clause remains, we put something into the Bill to show that, in the end, it is not the decision of the party hierarchies which is critical but that of the electorate.
	It is particularly unfortunate that the impression has been given that well established parliamentarians, who, perhaps, have a reputation for independence—even unconventional and inconvenient independence—have been those who have been asked to go, while others who are more subservient remain. That is why it is important, if the clause remains, that we establish the final authority of the people, the electorate. It surely must be right that the opportunity to walk away is, yes, voluntary, but when people are forced to walk away—even with a golden handshake and a resettlement package at the end of the Parliament—that they do so in terms acceptable to the electorate.

Baroness Butler-Sloss: I ask a practical question. I understood that Clause 7 was not going to be proceeded with.

Lord Tyler: We do not know that yet. I am a comparative novice in this House; I have been here only some four years, but until the clause is removed from the Bill, it stands and therefore, as I understand it, all the amendments are in order. If I am corrected in a moment, obviously, I will understand.
	All we seek to do in the amendment is to establish the principle that, at the end of the day, it is not the parties who should be in the position to enforce, it should be the people. If, as was indicated by all three party leaders in recent weeks, some form of report procedure should be established, that would have been a different matter. Without that, we think that it is wrong that the decisions should be taken behind closed doors. They should be taken in the open by the people they affect: the electors in the constituencies concerned. Hence the need, as we saw it, when we first saw the clause, for Amendment 75.

Lord Strathclyde: This is a substantial group of government amendments, and they will need careful consideration during the next few days.

Lord Higgins: As it appears that my noble friend is winding up, perhaps I may comment briefly. The amendments are certainly to be welcomed, as they deal with the concern expressed about the role of IPSA in these matters, with regard to both the question of parliamentary privilege and whether it might affect criminal or civil charges. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House anticipated the amendments in her letter. They are certainly an improvement. Having said that, I share the concern expressed by other noble Lords about new subsection (5)(b), that IPSA will somehow, although it is said not to be involved in individual cases but only with procedures, be able to set certain other conditions which will or may have to be taken into account by the commissioner.

Lord Bach: I rise to attempt to help the Committee. The first line of Amendment 43A, to which I have spoken, states that we leave out subsections (4) and (5) of Clause 6. The subsection which the noble Lord is unhappy about disappears if Amendment 43A is successful.

Lord Higgins: I think not. I am speaking to Amendment 43A. Perhaps the noble Lord will look at new subsection (5)(b) in the amendment, which states that IPSA can go on imposing various conditions. Although it is said that it will not be involved in individual cases, it will be involved in setting the structure which will, in turn, have to be taken into account in individual cases. That appears in the amendment. It is true that it may have appeared in the original clause, but I was referring to the provision in the amendment, not in the original clause. The noble Lord's intervention is slightly off the point, if I may say so.
	I am concerned that we will still find that IPSA is fulfilling a role in that context, and we have no idea what those conditions may be. Why we should leave it to IPSA to determine those conditions, rather than include them in the Bill, I am not at all clear. I am worried that subsection (5)(b) in the amendment brings IPSA back into a role that we may prefer it not to have.

Lord Campbell-Savours: In Amendment 43A, under new subsection (5B), which deals with registration, the commissioner has to take a decision whether he regards the failure to register an interest,
	"was minor or that the failure was inadvertent".
	From my recollection of what happens in the House of Commons, is there not a danger in that that the commissioner, who has received a complaint from a member of the public about a failure to register, may decide that, in his or her view, it was minor or inadvertent? That may not satisfy the person who has complained and may well be taking a decision that the Committee on Standards and Privileges would not approve of if it had known that it had been taken. As I understand that subsection, the commissioner is not required to inform the committee of his decision that it is minor or inadvertent.
	Rather subtle points arise about the practice that the commissioner will adopt in deciding whether matters are minor or inadvertent. That requires subjective judgments, and I foresee circumstances in which the Committee on Standards and Privileges may simply say that it would not have agreed, had it known.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I want to ask about the relative position of the code of conduct and the financial rules. I understand—although I am subject to correction—that the commissioner is concerned only with the financial rules, not with the code of conduct. The code of conduct is dealt with by the existing parliamentary commissioner. Amendment 43A refers in new subsection (5A) to,
	"a requirement included in the code by virtue of section 5(7)".
	It is not included in the code; it is included in the rules, so some confusion is apt to arise if those are not kept distinct.

Lord Strathclyde: Those last two or three interventions were extremely useful, especially that of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. They demonstrate that this substantial group of government amendments needs further probing. We will want to examine them in more detail, given that they have been in the public domain for only 24 hours or so.
	Of course, we will support the government amendments, because the issue that the Minister is trying to resolve was raised in another place by my right honourable friend Mr Grieve. He rightly identified the impossibility of having the authority publicly recommend penalties to the Committee on Standards and Privileges. He suggested that the Committee on Standards and Privileges should retain the role it currently has of assessing evidence and giving judgment on the behaviour of Members of Parliament. As I understand it, in the amendments, the Government have conceded the point and tabled amendments that, in their words, replicate the current position. That is certainly a great improvement on the impossible provision introduced to this House originally, so we will accept the amendments and not oppose their inclusion in the Bill.
	This is a complicated and substantial group of amendments that covers several clauses and has pre-empted many perfectly sensible amendments tabled by my noble friends and other noble Lords. It has raised many concerns that need proper examination; for instance, the rights of Members of Parliament to make representations and the fairness of the trial. No doubt, we shall come back to some of these issues when they are addressed later in the Committee, but I feel that some will have to be returned to on Report next week if this House is to give this legislation at least a vestige of the scrutiny that it so desperately needs.
	I do not envy the Minister the job of replying to the concerns that have been raised. We shall read very carefully what he has said and study these amendments before Report.

Lord Bach: Amendment 75 is a probing amendment that deals with the rights of a Member of Parliament. It was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. There is no way in which IPSA can get rid of a Member of Parliament. The noble Lord is right that only the electors can do so. The other place can expel a Member, but IPSA is not in a position to do so. The House retains all the power to sanction an MP. If it expels an MP or censures him in some way, it is its business through its committee and eventually on the Floor of the House. I understand that any MP who is expelled is entitled to stand again in a general election or a by-election. Nothing in the Bill affects that.
	It may be of assistance if I explain what government Amendment 43A, which is perhaps the major amendment in this group, does. It sets up a new regime and provides that the commissioner, after conducting an investigation, may do one of three things. If the complaint relates to the allowances scheme, he may, if the Member of Parliament has accepted the findings and has agreed to repay any money owing, not refer the matter to the committee but settle it. If the complaint relates to the code of financial interests, the Member has accepted the findings and the interest is minor or the infringement inadvertent and the MP takes the necessary steps to rectify the situation, the commissioner does not need to refer findings to the committee but can settle the matter. IPSA can impose conditions about which cases are suitable to be dealt with in this way, but in any other case the commissioner must make a report of findings to the Standards and Privileges Committee. The commissioner may also make a report to the committee if the Member of Parliament has not provided information that the commissioner reasonably requires for the purposes of the investigation.

Lord Campbell-Savours: Does that mean that the Standards and Privileges Committee will not be informed of cases of failure to register? Is that really right?

Lord Bach: We are giving the commissioner power not to make a report about the Member's case to the committee in very minor and inadvertent cases. It is therefore possible that the committee will never hear of those cases.

Lord Campbell-Savours: I am sorry to press my noble friend on that, but I am going back to the period that I spent on the committee. I cannot see how it is possible for the commissioner to decide whether something is minor or inadvertent. It is not as clear-cut as that. I foresee problems within the committee and objections from Members.

Lord Bach: Many of the commissioner's powers in this regard depend on whether the Member of Parliament acknowledges that he or she has done something in breach. The commissioner then decides that it is minor and the matter is not reported to the Standards and Privileges Committee.

Lord Goodhart: What happens if the commissioner carries out the investigation and finds that there was no fault on the part of the Member who was being investigated? Amendment 43A does not seem to spell that out.

Lord Bach: I am beginning to think that it may be necessary for me to ask the Committee's permission to take Amendment 43A back to reconsider. I make no apologies for doing that because of the important matters that have been raised during the debate on this group. I am more than happy to do that. Amendment 43A will not be put during Committee stage. I hope that that is helpful to the Committee.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: I would prefer the Government to put Amendment 43A into the Bill while saying that they will consider the various points that have been raised and may produce amendments in response to them later. Then the Bill would read when reprinted and we will have a much better idea of it. At the moment, the difficulty is that we cannot read what the Bill will look like on one piece of paper. That makes it very difficult to unravel all these issues. I think that it would be better if the Minister put the amendment in the Bill, even if he is going to fiddle about with it later.

Lord Bach: The advice of an ex-Chief Whip, even on the opposition Benches, is always invaluable. I am going to take it. I was trying to explain the position under Amendment 43A, as presently drafted, and I promise that we will look at it.

Lord Crickhowell: I entirely agree with what my noble friend said and I welcome the Minister's response. However, he said that the information might never get to the Standards and Privileges Committee. Am I wrong in thinking that the general public may have access to that information under the legislation? Indeed, that is the origin of the whole present upheaval in Parliament. Is it not a fairly bizarre situation that someone may ask for the information and get it, but the committee of the House will not have it?

Lord Bach: I take the noble Lord's point. It is the same point that my noble friend was making. That is one of the matters that we will consider with gratitude to the Committee for raising it.
	I was asked what would happen if the commissioner referred a finding and it was overturned by the Standards and Privileges Committee. The committee retains the discretion to do whatever it likes with a referral from the commissioner. I do not think that anyone who has been a Member of the other place would expect it to do anything else. That does not undermine the independence of IPSA, which will set the allowances, if the Bill goes through. There will still be an independent body investigating and the findings can be made public. The IPSA scheme will be open to freedom of information.

Lord Campbell-Savours: Is the commissioner's report not simply the facts? It would be unprecedented for the committee to want to overturn the decision. If the commissioner was expressing a view, it would be a different matter.

Lord Bach: It is about facts but, so that parliamentary privilege is absolutely certain, as we understand it, the committee is entitled to overrule what the commissioner has found. That is going one step further than many might require. IPSA, not the commissioner, will set the procedure for investigation, so there can be no allegation that the commissioner is both judge and jury.
	I was asked why we need additional conditions to be specified by IPSA when a finding of a minor infringement of the rules is not referred to the Committee on Standards and Privileges. These additional conditions permit IPSA to specify additional matters before the commissioner refers a finding to IPSA. IPSA may, for example, wish to specify a threshold for the amount to be repaid and to avoid referring de minimis breaches or breaches where it was subsequently apparent that the rules or guidance were unclear.
	On Amendment 52, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, may be suggesting that, by the time the Member of Parliament makes representations, any complaint has already turned into an investigation. However, this might not be the case. The commissioner may receive a complaint and want to ask the MP informally what he wants to say in response. Depending on what the Member of Parliament says, the commissioner may proceed to a full investigation. It is therefore important to have procedures that make it clear that the MP's rights to respond to a complaint apply before, as well as after, it becomes a full-scale investigation. That is what the Bill seeks to say.

Lord Goodhart: I suggested that the amendment might mean that, but, if that is so, why should the Member not also have a right to explain his own position if the initiative for holding the investigation comes from either the commissioner or IPSA?

Lord Bach: As I understand it, the Member of Parliament can explain his own position.

Lord Goodhart: That is not how it is spelt out in the legislation, which refers specifically to an MP's right to speak when an individual has put down a complaint but does not create an equivalent right on the other two bases that I have just mentioned.

Lord Bach: If the Bill does not allow for that, we must look at it after Committee. It is certainly our intention that the Member of Parliament should have that right.
	I was asked why the Bill did not allow pre-investigation representations by Members of Parliament. That would add an additional layer of bureaucracy. The Bill provides that MPs can make representations throughout the investigation, although the noble Lord thinks that the Bill is not as clear about that as it should be. If the commissioner is satisfied that the complaint is unfounded—we have had this debate before—he may decide not to refer a report to the committee. That concerns my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours and other Peers, too. However, I need to make it clear that this is only on the proviso that the MP agrees with the conclusion, not in any other circumstance.
	The noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Jenkin of Roding, both seek through their amendments to amend the requirement that IPSA may specify the conditions under which the commissioner might be able to resolve a matter without referring it to the Committee on Standards and Privileges. As we see it, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, would like to see the provision removed; the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, wants to qualify it.
	On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, the conditions that are specified must be reasonable. IPSA will be a public authority and will be subject to the normal public law principles of rationality. Exactly what conditions may be imposed on informal settlements will be a matter for an independent authority. They might include a maximum amount of overpayment that can be dealt with without reference to the Committee on Standards and Privileges or a condition relating to a number of different findings on the same Member of Parliament.

Lord Goodhart: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister again. The amendments in my name would remove the conditions, but I explained that they were simply probing. What I really want to know is who makes the conditions and in what circumstances they are to be made.

Lord Bach: I take the noble Lord's point. If I have dealt with him too literally, perhaps he will understand why. It is important that the commissioner, the Member of Parliament and members of the public know the conditions in which it might be possible to settle the matter without referring it to the committee. This is there not to provide extra hoops for Members of Parliament to go through but to attempt to be open about the fairness of the procedures.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: I am grateful for the Minister's explanation, but I am afraid that I totally misunderstood what this is about. Could there be some clarification at a later stage, along the lines of the Minister's explanation, of the meaning of the paragraphs that refer to such other conditions? I had assumed that they meant the conditions relating to a particular case, but they appear not to mean that at all. The conditions are set generally by IPSA as part of the provision for settling the case without referral to the committee.

Lord Bach: What the noble Lord asks for is utterly reasonable and I will ensure that a letter is written that clarifies our response to his question on this part of the Bill. That letter will be sent to the noble Lord and a copy placed in the Library of the House.

Earl Ferrers: Will that letter be sent in time for Report?

Lord Bach: Yes, it will.

Lord Higgins: Why is IPSA setting these conditions? Why are they not in the Bill?

Lord Bach: There has to be some discretion. Not every condition can be in the Bill. Perhaps the noble Lord will be patient enough to wait for the letter to drop through his letterbox.
	We have debated this group of amendments for a long time. They arise from government amendments that find general support from around the Committee. The Government have responded to widely held opinion both in the other place and here. The amendments may not be perfect, but the Committee stage gives us the chance to see how we can make them better.
	Amendment 19B agreed.
	Amendment 19C
	 Moved by Lord Bach
	19C: Schedule 1, page 14, line 11, leave out paragraph (d)
	Amendment 19C agreed.
	Amendments 19D to 20 not moved.
	Schedule 1, as amended, agreed.
	Schedule 2 : Commissioner for Parliamentary Investigations
	Amendments 20A and 20B not moved.
	Schedule 2 agreed.
	Schedule 3 agreed.

Lord Higgins: I thought that the Minister said in a discussion with my noble friend Lord Cope that the Government were going to move Amendment 43A.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: We have not got to that amendment yet. We would like to get there soon, but I am not sure that we will.
	Clause 2 : MPs' salaries
	Amendment 21
	 Moved by Lord Lyell of Markyate
	21: Clause 2, page 1, line 17, at end insert—
	"( ) In fixing the salaries of members of the House of Commons, the House shall, so far as practicable, provide for a salary, taxable according to the normal laws of taxation, and set, after consultation with the persons and bodies listed in section 3(4), at a fair level to include the reasonable needs of members to maintain homes near Westminster and in or near their constituencies."

Lord Lyell of Markyate: I will try not to detain your Lordships for too long. In speaking to Amendment 21, I shall speak also to Amendment 26. These amendments are important for practical reasons and for clarification of the interlinking between Clause 2, which provides for salaries for Members of Parliament, and Clause 3, which provides for their allowances. I believe that they are of constitutional significance in that the whole system of allowances for MPs, as we all know only too well, has brought the other place into disrepute, which is deeply worrying for all of us, particularly for many of us in this House who spent many years there.
	At the heart of this problem is the way in which salaries and allowances have been mixed for Members of Parliament for more than 30 to 40 years. The remuneration—in ordinary terms, the pay—of Members of Parliament has been a mixture of a salary and a very broadly based allowance. It started in July 1974 when, at a time of high inflation, Harold Wilson, with the Government between the two elections, was faced with a serious revolt by Labour MPs who were in deep trouble. The average take-home pay was about two hundred and something pounds a month. They were having real difficulties in making ends meet. They had to live in London but did not have living away from home allowances or anything else. MPs were going to revolt against an incomes policy which the Government wanted to introduce for everyone else.
	It was got around by the device—you could almost say the fudge—which every party has taken up since, of giving a £500 a year allowance to all Members of Parliament. That was equivalent to about 25 per cent of their actual salary or 20 per cent of their total remuneration. That has been going on ever since. It went on for all 22 years that I was in Parliament. It almost came entirely under the heading of the second homes allowance. You could choose which home would be your second home. I chose the home where I brought up my family in Hertfordshire and I lived frugally in London. I believe that many parliamentary colleagues did much the same, although some had small places in their constituency and kept their families in London.
	It is important to understand that it was, and up to a point very much still is, an essential part of the overall pay and remuneration of a Member of Parliament. Today, where an MP earns £64,000 of salary and has a living away from home allowance, if it can be justified under the present rather complicated rules, of £24,000, when the tax is taken off the £64,000, approximately one-third of the whole pay of a Member of Parliament comes under this shadowy heading of allowance.
	I recognise that there are objections to this House telling the House of Commons what to do, but this House has a real responsibility for the constitutional effect and good clarification of this legislation. Clauses 21 and 22 require the House of Commons to do away with the current additional costs allowance in respect of second homes and to provide for a salary that would be taxed in the normal way as for all other taxpayers, which amounts to what the Senior Salaries Review Body considers to be a fair level. It should take into account the needs of a Member of Parliament to maintain homes near Westminster and in or near his or her constituency.
	Put very simply, the aim is to treat Members of Parliament as nearly as possible like all other citizens.

Lord Gordon of Strathblane: Just so that I and perhaps other Members of the House are clear, does this mean that an MP for Orkney and Shetland would be paid exactly the same as an MP for Chelsea?

Lord Lyell of Markyate: I think that it probably does. During the years when I was in Parliament, there was perceived to be a lot of unfairness to London, Members who did not get the second homes allowance which was so valuable. They got a much smaller allowance. Parliament could consider going back to that sort of idea. I do not really want to get into that kind of detail. I am trying to get away from what I believe was the device of using allowances which ought to have been pay, and which was pay. A Member of Parliament got just pay until July 1974. Since then, we have expanded this device of allowances and the time has come to do away with it.
	Ordinary citizens talk to us and we discuss this issue. They really dislike seeing people have a £7,000 kitchen or something like that put into their house in order to get an allowance. Almost more damagingly—although it is perhaps the only respectable way of getting this allowance—seems to be to have a colossal mortgage of £250,000 or sometimes £350,000 on which the interest is paid. This leads to a lot of the fudges and the flipping and to all sorts of things of which one does not approve, some of which amount to wrongdoing. But we should not put Members in that position. It is relevant for us to consider this because the Bill seems to set in stone the obligation to do that.
	Under Clause 2, the obligation is for the House of Commons to make resolutions on its salaries. However, the clause says nothing about allowances. Under Clause 3, IPSA is to pay the salaries and make provision for allowances. There seems to be a notion in the Bill—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but there is a real danger that this is how it will be seen—that this system of a mixture of pay and allowances, a large portion of which is, or always used to be, substitute pay, will be continued.
	There are perfectly good grounds for genuine expenses, including travel expenses, being dealt with differently. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Gordon: you certainly should not get the same amount of money if you travel to Hemel Hempstead, as I did, or to St Albans, as opposed to Orkney and Shetland. Likewise, secretarial allowances in my time were much more disciplined and properly organised. They were paid by the House and were proper expenses. That can be dealt with perfectly well. However, let us clean up the system and get away from the mixture of expenses and allowances, both of which really are an essential part of pay. I think that I have said enough.

Lord King of Bridgwater: I may have misunderstood, but my noble and learned friend said that he did not want to dictate to the House of Commons what it should do. Is he not dictating to Sir Christopher Kelly what he should do?

Lord Lyell of Markyate: My noble friend is absolutely right. In fact, I have written on my notes that I would be accused of dictating to Sir Christopher Kelly, for whom I have a very high regard. I do not know him well, but people speak highly of him. However, this House has enormous experience and understanding of these matters. We do not want to set up a system that will straitjacket Sir Christopher or anybody else into accepting a system where there is a very real argument for change. Therefore, the amendment is partly probing and partly to suggest a proposal which I am sure could be improved from a drafting point of view. I await the Minister's comments.

Lord Bridges: The noble and learned Lord has made some very important points. I am not sure, strictly speaking—

Noble Lords: Order!

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Can we allow the Deputy Chairman of Committees to follow the appropriate procedure?

Baroness Harris of Richmond: I am assuming that the noble and learned Lord has moved the amendment.

The Earl of Onslow: My amendment is grouped with Amendment 21—

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: Lord Bridges!

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: The noble Lord wishes to speak.

Lord Bridges: I wish to comment briefly on the remarks made by the noble and learned Lord. He touches on some extremely important points. Just how permissible it is for us to comment on arrangements proposed for the other House, I am not sure, but I would suggest that the two points that he has made are different in character. The first suggests that Members should be paid a taxable salary. That is probably key to part of the solution to the problems of the other place. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord may have noticed that the Prime Minister himself made a suggestion of this kind not all that long ago.
	In the second part of the amendment, the noble and learned Lord refers to,
	"reasonable needs ... to maintain homes near Westminster and in or near their constituencies".
	Here we are in far more difficult territory. It is one of the reasons why the previous scheme got into such difficulties in the House of Commons. One therefore ought to separate these two ideas. While I agree strongly with the first of the noble and learned Lord's ideas, I am very doubtful about the second.

The Earl of Onslow: Although my amendment is grouped with Amendment 21, it deals with a different point. Either we can go on with it or we can deal with it separately.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The noble Earl's amendments are in this group. It is perfectly sensible for him to speak to them now.

The Earl of Onslow: I must admit that parts of this Committee have reminded me totally and utterly of the wireless programme "I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue". Perhaps the Woolsack ought to be rechristened as Mornington Crescent. Another thing has amused me somewhat. Normally one gets furious with Governments for resisting perfectly sound amendments with intellectual back-up. Now we have a Government who cannot stop accepting amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, is shaking her head, but she protests too much. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, has said "I haven't a clue" at least twice, while both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have been accepting amendments. It is a novel experience.
	The point I make in my amendment is important. It goes back to what my noble and learned friend Lord Lyell was saying about Harold Wilson and the allowances business. A Member of your Lordships' House, whose name escapes me for the moment, said to me earlier that he remembers the late and much loved Lord Mellish, when he was Chief Whip in the House of Commons, saying exactly the same thing: "The allowances will make up your salary". My amendment tries to take away from the Executive. I believe that David Cameron has said that they should not get the recently recommended award, and the Prime Minister has said that he is not going to take his ministerial pension. With respect, that is gesture politics that stops people being intelligent about what salaries should be. My simple point is this. If IPSA recommends that the pay should be X, that salary should come in after the next election so that the temptation for the Executive to go down the fiddling route, for want of a better term, is taken away. As we all know, the late and much loved Mr Harold Wilson said that a week is a long time in politics. So this provision would surely enable a divorce from the shenanigans and ensure that there is no temptation towards greater shenanigans.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: I am glad that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, got in before me, because he has said that the Government Front Bench cannot stop accepting amendments. Well, now is the time to stop accepting amendments. I urge my noble friends not to accept the amendments tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell, and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, for a whole variety of reasons. One was brilliantly put by the noble Lord, Lord King, in a very short and sharp intervention. When we were in the cloakroom earlier, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell, encouraged me to participate in this debate. When I get that kind of encouragement, it is difficult to refuse, although I think that he might regret his encouragement.
	However, I agree with the noble and learned Lord's analysis of what happened over the years that he and I were in the House of Commons. Successive Prime Ministers from both parties said to Members, "Don't accept the increases". We must remember that those increases were proposed by the Senior Salaries Review Body. It is meeting regularly at the moment under the munificent chairmanship of Bill Cockburn, and we all have faith in it. The body has done us proud in the past. But when recommendations were made, Prime Ministers would say, "Oh no, the time is not right to accept salary increases. The public won't accept it". The pay rises were voted down. I can say that I was one of the people who always voted in favour of an increase, because if it has been suggested by an independent body, you should accept it. That is right and sensible. The review body looked at the comparisons and made recommendations. When I and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell, were in the other place, we got ourselves into this fankle—if noble Lords will excuse the Scots word—of salaries that were too low.
	Sixty-four thousand pounds is a ridiculously low salary for a legislator. It is about time that we said that and, even more important, it is about time that they said it. It is about time that they stood up and said that they are worth more than that. I say to some of my ex-colleagues that they should start doing that. After all, a general practitioner is now paid over £100,000, and head teachers are paid similar amounts. John Humphrys gets paid hundreds of thousands of pounds for going on and undermining our whole democratic structure with his gurning and his awful—

The Earl of Onslow: Jonathan Ross is paid even more.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: I was going to come to him. The editor of the Daily Mail, for goodness' sake, gets over £1 million. I also found out during an interesting exchange on television that even young girls like Carrie Gracie on morning television which no one watches get paid £92,000 a year. I could not believe it. It is about time that people at the other end of the corridor said, "We are doing an important job and we deserve to be properly paid".
	The amendment should not be accepted for a number of reasons. In what was again a penetrating intervention, my noble friend Lord Gordon said—with respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell—that the situation for someone who represents a London constituency is very different from that of someone representing a Scottish, Welsh or northern English constituency. The costs are much greater for people coming from long distances. Maintaining a home here has legitimate costs, but unfortunately they have been abused. A number of Members of the House of Commons, but only a relatively small number of them, abused the system with things like duck houses and cleaning out moats. We know all of them.

A noble Lord: That has nothing to do with it.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: They were claimed under second home allowances and they are embarrassing. Some of those who appeared in the Daily Telegraph were not abusing the system because genuine mistakes were made. I can give one example. A number of Members from all parties claimed every month for council tax, so they claimed £59 or whatever it was each month. They forgot that you pay council tax for only 10 months, not 12. It is an easy mistake to make, and it is a genuine and honest one. As a result they have been pilloried and included in the awful category of having somehow defrauded the taxpayer, which is certainly not the case. We should recognise that some of the alleged crimes that Members of the House of Commons are supposed to have committed are not as bad as they have been painted.
	There are two reasons why we should not accept these amendments, particularly the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell. First, as the noble Lord, Lord King, said, Christopher Kelly has been asked to look into this. We are getting ourselves into so many fankles—we had an exchange earlier—that we do not even know how many commissioners there are or what they are to do. That has not been settled yet.
	Just consider the cost of all these commissioners. When I went into the House of Commons, there was one man with a small staff in the Fees Office dealing with an efficient, simple system. Now there are dozens, if not scores, if not hundreds of people, costing millions and millions of pounds, keeping an eye on the expenses, which are probably now less than the cost of keeping an eye on them. It is astonishing. Now we are to set up more commissioners, who will cost more, to keep an eye on a decreasing expenditure.
	Sir Christopher Kelly has been asked to look at the system and it would be outrageous for us to suggest that we should pre-empt his examination. Even more important, it would be outrageous for this House to dictate to the other House what that system should be. It could also happen the other way round. We are in the middle of looking at our system and I have made recommendations on my own behalf to the Senior Salaries Review Body and it is right that we should put them forward. We should have a decent system of allowances here and it is important that we should argue the case for it. We should recognise that people here give service.
	I heard an eloquent, powerful argument at a meeting with the Senior Salaries Review Body from a Liberal Democrat Baroness for allowances that make it possible for people to do this job full time and effectively. Other people had different points of view, but we need to put forward our arguments forcibly. We shall make the decision. The House of Commons is not going to tell us what our system is going to be and we should not tell it what its system should be.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: We should get back to the Bill before long, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes—not necessarily with every word he said—in his opposition to my noble and learned friend's amendment. My noble and learned friend seemed concerned that the Bill will put the future of MPs' salaries and allowances into a straitjacket and that we should avoid doing that. In my opinion, Amendment 26, and also, to a degree, Amendment 21, would put them into a straitjacket and decide what the overall system is to be.
	It may be that at the end of all the discussions the system outlined by my noble and learned friend will come out as the best one, although the Inland Revenue would have views on whether it would wish to be placed in the position of having to decide on the correct costs of allowing Members of Parliament the expenses of doing their job. There are undoubtedly expenses. My constituency was 120 or 125 miles from London and so, inevitably, there were not only travel costs but accommodation costs, whatever you like to call them, that had to be allowed for somehow. They could of course be included in a salary with a tax allowance to cover the expense of doing the job. Maybe that is what my noble and learned friend has in mind.
	However, his amendments will put the system in a straitjacket. Whatever comes out of the second homes business, we all agree that MPs must have travel allowances, secretarial allowances and so on, and these could be properly referred to in the Bill, to be decided by whatever the mechanism is. We should not write my noble and learned friend's amendments into the Bill because it would put it into a straitjacket for the future, which we should not do for some of the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: I have some sympathy for the reasoning behind the amendments tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell of Markyate. There are two issues here: fixing and paying salaries and fixing and paying expenses/allowances. However, the Bill does not address the two issues; it addresses only one and a half because fixing salaries is not included in the Bill.
	There is an interrelationship between the two and it is interesting that under the Bill IPSA will have to consult the SSRB. It might be worth having if the SSRB had to consult IPSA, but I am not certain that that is in the script for the SSRB. In many ways it would be far better if both jobs were done by one organisation. People accept that the SSRB has certain skills and so on, but there is an interrelationship and that is what is behind the amendments.
	However, the amendments cannot be right. Amendment 21 refers to maintaining homes near Westminster and in or near constituencies. That could lead one to believe that it has got to cover two additional homes because there could be another place where the MPs actually live and they would then need a constituency home and a London home. I am not certain that that would be thought through by someone considering this, so there is an open point there for someone to look at. If we are suggesting that Parliament is to distance itself from this thinking, that is one of the things that should be done.
	Secondly, the scheme must abolish the additional costs allowance. That may be right, it may be wrong, but the body is being set up to look at the various allowances and therefore it is surely not right to amend the Bill in this way. I do not believe the amendments should be supported.

Earl Ferrers: I am glad that my noble and learned friend has tabled the amendment because it goes to the heart of the whole problem. As he said, this has been going on for 35 years. Why has it come to this fearful mess? Simply because the Daily Telegraph bought a disc for £300,000 and published its contents day after day. No one had any redress and, if they tried to find any redress, they were ridiculed. That is terrible because people have had their names blackguarded as a result of this. Good, honest Members of Parliament—and the majority of them are good and honest and work hard—have had their names blackguarded and their characters assassinated.
	The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, made a typical mistake—not typical of him but a mistake that is typical of many people—when he referred to moats and to duck palaces. The two gentlemen to whom he has referred did not get a penny for either of those, but they are associated with having got money and, as a result of that, they are obliged to leave Parliament. I think that is an absolute tragedy.
	If we have a House of Parliament which we value and like, we should consider how best to improve Parliament and not just say, "This is a matter for the House of Commons". It is a constitutional matter. Just because a few people down there may want such and such a thing at this time, it does not mean to say that in 18 months' time many of them will still be there. This will be passed on to the next generation and therefore it is right that it should be considered by both Houses. I hope that your Lordships will do so.
	However, if this has been going on for 35 years—and it was not wrong; it was the method by which people were paid—it is because no Government would accept the opinion of the Senior Salaries Review Body. I remember Baroness Seear from the Liberal Democrats, who was a member of the Senior Salaries Review Body, saying, "There is no point in being a member; whenever we suggest something it is never accepted. What is the point of going to all the trouble?" Governments did not accept its recommendations for the good reason that they felt the public would not stand it, so they accepted instead the parliamentary allowances scheme.
	The conditions of that scheme were wrong, and it was unfair when people who took advantage of what they were entitled to were then accused of being wicked, milking the system and having their snouts in the trough—all those ghastly expressions that were applied to them. The Members of the House of Commons are good, honest people and it is terrible to see them blackguarded like this.
	As this has been going on for so long, for 35 years, why are we in such a hurry to get it through in two weeks? There is of course a problem and we have got to try to get the solution right, but we do not get the solution right by doing it in such a hurry. I do not blame the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for saying, "I'll take this back and I'll think about it". The need to get the solution right is the reason for having three, good, set periods between the stages of the Bill as it goes through Parliament and not doing it all in a hurry, because, otherwise, we will come to the wrong view.
	There are lot of problems here, but my noble and learned friend has accentuated them by suggesting that if we pay people a proper salary and cut out the expenses, everyone will supposedly be satisfied—except, of course, the moment you pay them a proper salary, there will be such a rumpus in the newspapers and everywhere else that, as a result of all this hoo-ha, all the Members of Parliament have done is pay themselves more. That is an awful problem. However, we have got to be careful not to hurry this and produce an inadequate result.

Lord Lloyd of Berwick: I support what the noble Earl has said. I was all those years ago—although it is hard to believe—a member of the Senior Salaries Review Body, of which Baroness Seear was then also a member, under the chairmanship of Lord Boyle. I remember that we would year after year recommend increases and found it extremely frustrating that, year after year, those increases were resisted by Members of the House of Commons for reasons of their own. I remember in particular Lord Boyle coining a good expression for that—"competitive self-abasement"—and he foresaw then that it would lead to the sort of trouble that we are experiencing today.

Lord Graham of Edmonton: Perhaps I may enlighten the Committee as to how previously we went about looking after our own interests. When I ceased to be the Chief Whip, I became the chairman of the Labour Peers Group in 1997. We would have to respond to invitations to submit evidence on behalf of Labour Peers to the Senior Salaries Review Body. I quickly found out that the review board received evidence from the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, the Cross Benches as well as Labour, which invariably presented an opportunity to divide and conquer. We quickly established that we would make joint, rather than separate, submissions on behalf of the whole group.
	We are talking about the 1980s and the 1990s. Each time there was an opportunity to alter our allowances, they went up by a pound or two. The regime at the time said that anything to do with public expenditure relating to Members of the House of Lords had to be clamped down on. I discovered that the best way to achieve an increase worth having was to produce a well researched paper. I went to the Library and obtained evidence, the most telling of which as far as the overnight allowance was concerned was a league table published every year by the RAC of the cost of a night's stay in a London hotel, from one-star to five-star. I believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, was a member of our little committee; he shakes his head, but not in the way that I wanted him to. Is he prepared to reshake it? Yes, he is. I discovered that while overnight allowance at the time was in the region of £70 or £80, the actual price of a three-star hotel was about £120. I recommended to the committee—six or eight of us, meeting informally—that we should go for the three-star option, which would give us a big increase of £20 or £30. A member of the committee who I am sorry is not here, the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said that he would not agree to that. I asked him why. He said, "We are not three-star people; we are five-star people, and we should go for five-star". We managed to persuade him that to go for five-star was too big a jump, so we went for three-star, and the overnight allowance, instead of going up by two or three pounds, in one fell swoop went up by £34 a night thereon. I often think that when colleagues in the House are asked what Ted Graham will be remembered for, they will say not the maiden speech, the ambush or the victory, but the fact that he had a major part to play in increasing the overnight allowance.
	There is nothing wrong with the sense of the amendment, but we need to keep in mind the fact that colleagues in the Commons have already passed this Bill—this is their Bill. I shall not go into the politics of the speed at which it is going or the circumstances—everyone has had their two-pennyworth on that that and I do not want to muddy the waters—but we need to be very careful, because the amendment is telling the Commons what regime we believe they should be under. My understanding is that this House will get its opportunity to look at the generality of the regime and fit it to our circumstances. Most people here who like me have friends in the other House will know how sick at heart the majority of them are at being landed in the middle of a dreadful situation. That goes for all parties—I am very pleased that no one in this House has ever sought to make fish of one and fowl of the other as far as responsibility is concerned. However, we need to work together, not only as two Houses but as four Benches within this House. If we do nothing more than recognise that the Commons are entitled to their view, it does not mean that the Bill cannot be amended—it is being amended sensibly to meet the situation—but we need to be careful to lay down the law for the Commons.
	I believe that we will come to a point where there is very little difference between the Houses. We know the major difference: that is a salaried House; this is an unsalaried House. How this House is reformed remains to be seen; for example, whether it should be elected or appointed. We should tread very carefully in trying to influence the process, even on the margin, knowing that the Commons can put it right. We do not want to create an atmosphere between the two Houses where they eventually say, "We are trying to get a Bill which suits our circumstances, and when it goes down there, people try to get their own back for what we've done up here". The Leader of the House has the difficult job of persuading us to agree not only to the Bill as we have it but to amendments as they come forward. She deserves the utmost support, and she certainly has mine.

Baroness Butler-Sloss: Despite the very wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, as I have been listening to the debate on the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell of Markyate, I have become increasingly concerned about the unsuitability of our discussing Clauses 2 and 3 before Sir Christopher Kelly reports. It is extraordinarily difficult to decide whether we should accept the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord or by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow—or any other amendments—when we do not know what Sir Christopher Kelly is going to say or what further matters will come from the Senior Salaries Review Body. We are in a vacuum; we are talking in this vacuum and it is extraordinarily unsuitable. I appreciate that the House of Commons has gone through the same unsuitable procedure and has agreed it. We have to recognise what we are about and how wrong it is that we should be doing it.

The Earl of Onslow: Has not the noble and learned Baroness given a perfect answer for not having this Bill at all until after Sir Christopher Kelly has reported?

Baroness Butler-Sloss: I am talking only about Clauses 2 and 3. I am not at the moment talking about the entire Bill; I have a view but I do not think that it is appropriate to express it at the moment. I am concerned that we have been debating for some 42 minutes whether the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell of Markyate, should be passed, when it is inappropriate to do so now, not because the proposal is necessarily right or wrong but because we cannot do this until we know what Sir Christopher Kelly says.

Lord Tyler: I want to contribute briefly to the debate, not least because I want to put it on record that I am breaking the habit of a lifetime and agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock.
	It is not just for the reasons given by the noble and learned Baroness that I think that it would be totally inappropriate to accept the amendment but because it would go against the whole rationale of the Bill. The Bill is trying to divide the responsibility for making recommendations on matters of salary and allowances, taking it away from the Divisions that have taken place on the Floor of the House of Commons. I was there in July 1974, a very new Member; I was amazed that the House of Commons should vote on these matters, particularly that it should vote in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, said, under the influence of a Prime Minister who was not prepared to accept the independent advice of the SSRB.
	I entirely endorse the comment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. Yes, there were competitive self-abasement challenges to each party every time this came up. I did not succumb to that on many occasions and when I subsequently became Chief Whip for my party and shadow Leader of the House I tried to encourage my colleagues to stand up for what they thought was right. But we are not there now and, while it is entirely understandable that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell of Markyate, is trying to bring together these two issues—they have been seen as separate in the past—the wrong way to go about it is surely for the House of Lords, at this stage, to pre-empt the discussions of the SSRB, to pre-empt the Kelly inquiry and to pre-empt, indeed, the discussions of IPSA. That would be extraordinary. At the very moment when Members of Parliament no longer think that they should be defining precisely what will happen but should take professional advice from outside, get good comparators and look at this issue in a wider context, what would the public say if the House of Lords imposed a new straitjacket, to use the noble and learned Lord's phrase, by putting these amendments into the Bill? I hope that the government Front Bench will very speedily take advantage of the mood throughout the Committee that it would be inappropriate for us to proceed in this way.

Earl Ferrers: Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, does not fully realise that this will not put anyone in a straitjacket. It is simply making a recommendation to the House of Commons, which it can accept or reject.

Lord Tyler: I think that it will reject it, so why are we pursuing it in this way? I await with interest what the Minister has to say.

Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope: Before the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, sums up, I wonder whether I could ask a technical question. The money that would pay for the implementation of Amendment 21, were it to be accepted, would flow from the Members Estimate, which is laid by the Treasury and stood at £171 million in 2007-08. It deals with a whole range of things, mainly salaries and allowances, but also important things such as centrally provided IT, staff training and, indeed, Cranborne money and Short money.
	When the parliamentary standards authority is set up, will it be responsible for the Members Estimate in its entirety? As currently constituted, the Members Estimate has an audit committee and an accounting officer, and the system is pretty well established. When the new parliamentary standards authority takes over the role of looking after this £171 million, will it do that in its entirety or will there be some other arrangement for handling the Members Estimate as it is currently laid?

Lord Strathclyde: When I saw this amendment on the Marshalled List, I knew that it would lead to quite a substantial debate, not least from former Members of another place who have not only a great deal of interest in the subject but also a great deal of knowledge gained over many years. So it was a delight to hear the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, say how he felt that £64,000 was not a great deal of money. It is to the people of Cumnock. That is part, no doubt, of the competitive debasing that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, spoke about.
	We could spend a great deal of time talking about the pay and salaries of another place. In fact, we have spent more time this afternoon talking about the remuneration of another place than we ever do talking about our own. At some stage, we ought to put that right.
	The point that has been made, particularly by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, about not pre-empting the Kelly commission, is right. As a principle, we should not spend too much time debating the pay of another place given that we would not much like another place talking about how we are funded. That is also a consideration. However, this debate has been useful. Our colleagues in another place on all sides of the House sometimes feel beleaguered and misunderstood. This has been an opportunity for some noble Lords to make some very supportive statements about Members of another place, which will no doubt be welcomed, although probably ignored by everybody else.
	I hope that my noble and learned friend will not press his amendment. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: This has been an extremely interesting debate. Although the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell, will probably feel that his amendments have not received an enthusiastic response from all sides of the Committee, none the less he has provoked a very interesting debate. His comments on the history of allowances, salaries and SSRB recommendations over the past 30 years were very pertinent. I have no doubt that some of the difficulties that the House of Commons has got itself into are for the very reasons that the noble and learned Lord has suggested. My noble friend Lord Foulkes, in disagreeing with the amendment, also made some very pertinent points.
	The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, referred to "competitive self-abasement". As a Minister who has, in the past two years, twice requested no salary increase, in the voluntary way that Ministers do that, I know something of the matter. To be fair, since Governments of different hues have pursued this, I should defend why that has happened. It has often been at a time of great economic challenge. Just at the moment, when the country is going through a considerable economic challenge, it is not unreasonable for Ministers to send a signal that they understand those pressures.

Lord Tyler: Does the Minister also accept that under several Governments, when it was alleged that the economy was in very good shape, there was no attempt to redeem the previous promises?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: That is the other side of the coin, of course. My understanding is that the SSRB, which has a thankless task in this area, will take account—

A noble Lord: It is pointless.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I do not agree. One needs to recognise that the review body covers many more people than just MPs. It takes account of the fact that there have been times when pay increases have not been accepted and then makes allowances for that. In the circumstances that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, suggests, the increase that the review body recommends is probably above the going rate of inflation, which leads to the issue that arises here. I do not seek to defend that, but we need to understand how we have got here and why Governments sometimes do that.
	We accept the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that many good people from different parts of the House of Commons have been damaged in the past few months. He asks: why the need for speed? It is simple, although I understand why noble Lords are concerned about rushed legislation, which is a perfectly substantive point to raise. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that it is unusual for Governments to be criticised for accepting amendments from noble Lords, but we are accepting a number of amendments—although, alas, not his—in a spirit of understanding. In order to restore public confidence, it is necessary for legislation to be passed as soon as it can be. I believe that we have received the support of the other party Front Benches, which have taken part in the joint discussions. Action has had to be taken quickly in order to restore public confidence. That does not mean that the Government are not listening to all the debate on the legislation. It is in that spirit that we have accepted a number of amendments. We will write quickly to noble Lords in the way that was suggested in our previous debate and no doubt we will come back on Report and discuss these matters further.
	In the light of the debate, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell, will not be surprised that the Government are not persuaded that this is a matter on which the House of Lords ought to intervene. From a practical point of view, we think that this is a matter for the Commons. Noble Lords have cautioned this House, in seeking to involve itself in a matter that ought to belong to the other place, that our own allowance and expenses system is under scrutiny by the SSRB at the moment. Noble Lords know that the review body will make recommendations to the Prime Minister and the Speaker of the House and it will then be for this House to decide how to take the matter forward. It is right that we so do.
	The formulation of the noble and learned Lord's amendment can be debated. I do not need to go into that, save to say that I thought that my noble friend Lord Gordon raised a specific and detailed point about the impact that it would have if we took on the noble and learned Lord's formulation regarding Members of the other place who lived a very long way from London.
	The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said that we were debating Clauses 2 and 3 in a vacuum. That is one way to look at it, but nothing in the Bill pre-empts the work of Sir Christopher Kelly's committee. Clauses 2 and 3 in particular should be seen as laying the architecture for what will follow. The Bill lays the foundation to implement any recommendations made by the Committee on Standards in Public Life. In that sense, it is acceptable to go in the direction that we seek to go.

Lord Lyell of Markyate: Can the Minister assure me that there is nothing in the drafting of the Bill as he understands it that would prevent Sir Christopher Kelly, or indeed the House of Commons in due course, from trying to get away from the fudge of 34 years' standing if they thought it right to do so?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: That is my understanding. I come back to the point that the noble and learned Lord made at the start: because of past history, we are seeking to get away from ambiguity and fudge and to have a transparent and straightforward system from which Members in the other place who do the right thing have nothing to fear. I give him that assurance.
	The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, talked about gesture politics and the Executive. I have tried to give some reason why it has been reasonable for Governments to have done what they have, although I accept that we have ended up with problems as a result. The problem with the noble Earl's amendments is that they would interfere in what the House of Commons wishes to do. For instance, a resolution was made in July 2008 to accept the outcome of SSRB recommendations without amendment. Clause 2 reflects that arrangement. The noble Earl's Amendment 21A would prevent the House of Commons from resolving to make any change in MPs' salaries during the course of a Parliament. The noble Earl's other amendment would delay the introduction of the scheme set out in the Bill. I have no disagreement with the noble Earl in criticising the circumstances that have led to the situation that we find ourselves in but, however much we need to discuss the Bill further, it provides the architecture for getting a much more sensible and transparent system in future.

The Earl of Onslow: If I may reply before my noble and learned friend Lord Lyell, I completely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has said. I put this amendment down to try—and I succeeded, as my noble friend has with his amendments—to provoke a discussion on the whole question of how we got into this ghastly muddle. If my amendment has enabled that to happen, it has served its purpose. The amendment happens to reflect my own personal whim of how this should be done, but I did not expect anyone to accept it. I wanted above all to have an opportunity to say, as several noble Lords have done, that there are a lot of very honourable men in the House of Commons, that they should go on being called "honourable Members", that we should respect them as such and that we will do everything that we can to give them back the confidence that they deserve. I shall certainly not be moving my amendment.

Lord Lyell of Markyate: I agree with what my noble friend has said; he has said many of the things that I was about to. We are coming up to one hour on this debate and I am grateful to everyone who has taken part in it. I agree with a great many of their opinions. My objective was indeed to throw light on something that has been at the heart of this developing problem over many years and to encourage Sir Christopher and Parliament itself to try to tackle this problem boldly, cleanly and in a way that will enhance the reputation of Parliament in future. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 21 withdrawn.
	Amendment 21A not moved.
	Amendment 21B
	 Moved by Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
	21B: Clause 2, page 2, line 2, leave out "(as to which see further section 7)"
	Amendment 21B agreed.

Baroness Hayman: Amendment 21B pre-empts Amendment 22.
	Clause 2 agreed.
	Clause 3 : MPs' allowances scheme
	Amendment 23
	 Moved by Baroness Hamwee
	23: Clause 3, page 2, line 4, leave out "pay allowances" and insert "make payments"

Baroness Hamwee: I will also speak to Amendments 24, 25 and 27 to 31. This group follows the previous debate very neatly; I hope that we need not spend long on it. It picks up on exactly the points that so many noble Lords have just made, and I will use their own language. The amendment is to ensure that the legislation does not dictate to Sir Christopher Kelly and does not create a straitjacket.
	In this group of amendments I have sought neutral terminology. Rather than using the term "allowances" I have sought to use a rather simpler and more neutral term: "payments". The public understand an allowance to be an amount of money set aside for a designated purpose, and that the person entitled to the allowance can claim up to the amount of the allowance. An expense is paid in reimbursement of money paid out and, generally, a receipt would have to be produced. Without wanting to re-open the wounds of what has been happening, a big difficulty has been confusion between what expenses and what allowances are, with one being used for what the public would see as properly the other.
	I seek to avoid anticipating the scheme that may be designed and precluding any possible arrangement. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said that Clause 3 does not pre-empt but lays the architecture and only that. I fear that by using the term "allowances" it does a little more than that. It pre-empts, and I hope that the Bill can, as so many noble Lords clearly wish, leave the House of Lords without us having pre-empted what may be decided quite soon. I beg to move.

Lord Strathclyde: I will be brief. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that there is always a problem. There has been a problem throughout the Bill of pre-empting the work of Christopher Kelly. I do not share with the noble Baroness the same problem with the word "allowances". To me, expenses are something for which you have to put in receipts for a particular purpose, and "payments" to me sounds a bit more like a salary. I was rather comfortable with the word "allowances", and thought it fitted the bill pretty well.
	I will be interested to hear what the thinking was behind the Government's approach. Whether this Bill becomes law next week or not, as soon as Christopher Kelly has reported it may be that we will have to revisit this whole issue again. Maybe the noble Baroness will have her day at some stage in the next Session of Parliament.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: This has been a short but interesting debate. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that the Bill in no way seeks to pre-empt as she fears. Clause 3 would establish an independent system of regulation of expenses and allowances to replace the current system. In establishing IPSA, we are creating a body that must first take over responsibility for administration of the existing system which, of course, is a system of allowances.
	As noble Lords will know—we have discussed it—there is a review under way. One supposes, although it would not be right for me to presume, that even after it reports there may well be a system of allowances to administer whatever that may comprise. The important thing here, since we are trying to create the architecture that will work in the future, is that we do not want to limit the kinds of allowances that may be paid.
	The Concise Oxford Dictionary definition of allowances is an amount or sum allowed to a person, especially regularly, for a stated purpose. That seems to be a wholly acceptable description. We should not have any problem with the word "allowance". It allows us to continue with the transitional arrangements, but it does not really pre-empt Sir Christopher or, indeed, the system in the future.

Baroness Hamwee: I will not press it, but I simply disagree with the noble Lord's interpretation. I had certainly never thought of "payment" having the implication of a salary. A payment is money transferred—

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I did not mention a salary. I said it was an amount or sum allowed to a person, especially regularly, for a stated purpose.

Baroness Hamwee: The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said that he felt that "payment" had the implications of "salary". My concern is that the legislation will pre-empt, which is exactly what I seek to avoid. Whatever the noble Lord has to say, even from the Dispatch Box, if something means one thing he cannot make it mean another. However, I have made my point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 23 withdrawn.
	Amendments 24 and 25 not moved.
	Amendment 25A
	 Moved by Lord Cope of Berkeley
	25A: Clause 3, page 2, line 11, at end insert—
	"( ) the Speaker of the House of Commons,"

Lord Cope of Berkeley: This is a simple point. I feel sure that it was an error in the drafting. They have accidentally put the Speaker below the Leader of the House of Commons. That is patently wrong, and I am trying to correct it. I beg to move.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: At the risk of incurring the wrath of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, I agree. We support the noble Lord's amendment.
	Amendment 25A agreed.
	Amendment 25B
	 Moved by Lord Cope of Berkeley
	25B: Clause 3, page 2, line 14, leave out paragraph (c)
	Amendment 25B agreed.
	Amendments 26 to 28 not moved.
	Amendment 28A
	 Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
	28A: Clause 3, page 2, line 30, at end insert—
	"(7A) The scheme may provide for allowances to be payable in connection with a person's ceasing to be a member of the House of Commons; and references in this Act to the payment of an allowance to a member are to be read accordingly."

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The amendment makes clear that the allowances which may be included in the scheme and paid by IPSA include resettlement grants. This is the allowance paid to an MP when he or she loses a seat or steps down from the House, and is intended to be the equivalent of redundancy pay for an employed person. It is an inherent part of the allowances scheme. We decided to make specific reference to it to put it beyond doubt that the allowance can be included in the scheme since, strictly, it is not paid to a Member of the House of Commons, but only to a former Member. I hope that the amendment commends itself to the House. I beg to move.
	Amendment 28A agreed.
	Clause 3, as amended, agreed.
	Clause 4: Dealing with claims under the scheme
	Amendments 29 to 33 not moved.
	Amendment 33A
	 Moved by Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
	33A: Clause 4, page 3, line 15, leave out from "is" to "to" in line 16
	Amendment 33A agreed.
	Clause 4, as amended, agreed.
	Clause 5: MPs' code of conduct relating to financial interests
	Amendments 34 and 35 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.
	Amendment 36
	 Moved by Baroness Hamwee
	36: Clause 5, page 3, line 28, leave out "regularly" and insert "from time to time"

Baroness Hamwee: In moving Amendment 36, I will speak also to Amendments 37, 39 and 41. This is something of a ragbag of amendments. The first would change the term "regularly" to "from time to time" in Clause 5. "Regularly" suggests that the code will be reviewed at regular intervals, with the same gap between each review. Perhaps the Government can tell the Committee whether they envisage that the code will be reviewed annually, every six months, every five years, or whatever. "From time to time" allows a little more flexibility; it is simply a common-sense suggestion. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that.
	Amendment 37 is, again, a probing amendment. It would provide that the Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges or any successor committee is consulted, simply because, as we know, committees from time to time—but not regularly, though maybe occasionally—change their titles. I cannot imagine that the Government would wish to see a successor committee that covered the same functions excluded from the Bill. Amendment 39 is also a probing amendment. The term "specified" is used in Clause 5 in the context of "specified payment", "specified benefit in kind" and so on. I do not know whether it is intended that the specification will come within the code, but I am using this amendment to ask the question.
	Finally, I come to Amendment 41. Financial interests are defined as including indirect financial interests. The example is given of the financial interest of a member of the family of the Member concerned. My amendment—again, probing—seeks to understand what is meant by family in this context. Does it include a partner who is not married to the Member, or a civil partner? A partner would, these days, normally be regarded as a member of the family but not everybody would see it that way. Conversely, a distant cousin may be a member of the family, but it would be unreasonable to expect Members to have knowledge of the affairs of distant cousins. In between are sons, daughters, sibling and parents—how far does family extend in this context? There is an absolute requirement to register, which is why this is important, unless we are told that IPSA is to deal with these fine points under the term "specified" in what it specifies, which is of course the subject of one of the previous amendments. I beg to move.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: Grouped with these amendments are Amendments 39A and 39B in my name, both of which seek to leave out the words "by any specified means" in subsections (8)(a) and (b). I entirely agree that the code must prohibit a Member advocating a cause in exchange for consideration, but I do not want the code to set out the means by which this might be done. Apart from anything else, somebody might be ingenious enough to find a means that had not been thought of when the code for advocating was devised, which would then escape. I do not think that the words are necessary. If the code contains provisions that prohibit a Member advocating or initiating a cause in exchange for payment, that seems to me to be sufficient. I do not want to tie the code down in this way; it will be clear enough without the words that I am seeking to leave out. The same applies to paragraph (b).

Lord Campbell-Savours: I support the noble Baroness's wording of "from time to time". The words as they currently are in the Bill will set up an expectation which might be seized upon by Members of the other House in points of order to the Speaker requiring changes. "From time to time" more accurately reflects what will be the case. On the issue of members of the family, I refer the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to Category 9 in the code of conduct for Members of Parliament, where, under "Shareholdings", it refers to:
	"Interests in shareholdings held by the Member, either personally, or with or on behalf of the Member's spouse or partner or dependent children, in any public or private company".
	That has generally been the definition of "family" over a number of years as far as the House of Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges has been concerned.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: I endorse the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. Paid advocacy is paid advocacy and I share his view and concern that if the means by which that is done are set out in a code, someone could be ingenious enough to get around it. In one of the letters that the Leader of the House sent out, she made reference to the fact that paid advocacy is already an offence in the Scottish Parliament under legislation passed there. From recollection, I do not think there was any qualification of that; it did not have to be done in a particular way. However, the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, strengthen this provision.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: Amendment 36 seeks to change the timescale on which IPSA would review the MPs' code of conduct relating to financial interests from "regularly" to "from time to time". However, as presently drafted, the frequency and depth of review of the code is open to reasonable interpretation. To change the wording to "from time to time" would not necessarily make reviews less frequent, but would just remove the literal requirement that they be regular. A regular review if the system appeared to be operating satisfactorily, however, would not necessarily be onerous or require changes to be made to the system. I also suggest that it is important that the reviews are carried out regularly. "From time to time" seems to have a slightly ad hoc quality about it—perhaps something rather random. "Regularly", on the other hand, implies that IPSA should have a scheme for review of the code and should plan to review it at regular intervals. It is for IPSA to decide how often the code is reviewed. I would therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw that amendment.
	I turn now to Amendment 37, which seeks to ensure that any subsequent committee established to replace the Committee on Standards and Privileges is consulted when IPSA reviews the MPs' code of conduct relating to financial interests. However, Clause 10(2) of the Bill already makes arrangements for the interpretation of changes to names and/or functions of those committees referred to in the Bill. Clause 10 therefore already ensures that any successor committee would be consulted. I therefore deem this amendment to be unnecessary.
	Amendment 39 seeks to clarify that specified information about specified financial interests—the MPs' code of conduct relating to financial interests would require MPs to enter this in the IPSA-maintained register—must be information which is specified in the code. The Government recognise that it is important—especially when a failure to follow the rules set out in the code could result in a criminal charge—that MPs are clear what they need to comply with. That is why the clause as drafted makes it very clear that the code must be specific about what it describes both in relation to the registration of interests and the rules on paid advocacy. This is the case. Indeed, other amendments before us today consider that we use the word "specified" too frequently in the clause. But the wording of Clause 5(7) is perfectly clear. It states:
	"The code must require members to register specified information about specified financial interests".
	The requirement is already that matters be specified in the code.
	As regards the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, it is important that MPs can be clear what is meant by "paid advocacy". Breach of the rules on paid advocacy has always been taken extremely seriously by both Houses. Although there is no longer to be an offence of breaching the paid advocacy rules, it is still something that deserves to be spelt out in detail. In fact, the other place insisted on putting additional references to specified benefits in kind so as to make clear that they had to be spelt out in the rules. As the other place has looked at this clause and amended it in the opposite direction to that which the noble Lord now suggests, I urge the Committee to leave it to the other place to decide how precisely it wants to have a set of rules which applies to it only to be spelt out.
	Finally, Amendment 41—I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours for his advice—seeks to widen the scope of the term "family" or to clarify it. However, "family" in this context would be given its ordinary meaning and would already include the Member's spouse, civil partner and partner. By specifying the inclusion of the relationships of spouse, civil partner and partner, the amendment might more narrowly define the family. If the clause were amended in this way, specifying some relationships and not others, it would be possible to conclude that those relationships not referred to must not have been intended to be included in the definition of "family". I therefore urge the Committee to respect the definition of "family" as set out by my noble friend in the code of conduct. I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining "successor". We were indeed seeking for there to be no fixed timescale. The noble Baroness says that is for IPSA to determine. It seems to us that the Bill's wording cuts down the options.
	I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. I was aware that the term is dealt with in the current code, which is why I was probing the matter. He may not be aware that when the term became an issue in this House a few years ago, it caused a ruckus. I do not seek to narrow it. The noble Baroness is responding to my amendment. I was looking for a way to probe it, but I am left with the question: what about one's second cousin twice removed who lives in Australia, who is a member of the family? That seems to me a bit of a problem. It would not be reasonable to expect that one should know that. We cannot disown our relations, though some of us might sometimes like to in particular cases. I thank the noble Baroness for her explanation although I am still left with a little doubt on that final matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 36 withdrawn.
	Amendment 37 not moved.
	House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 8.34 pm

North-East England: Socio-Economic Prospects
	 — 
	Question for Short Debate

Tabled By Lord Bates
	What is their assessment of the socio-economic prospects for the north-east of England.

Lord Bates: My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to speak about the north-east of England. In initiating this debate, I refer noble Lords to my interests listed in the Register. The purpose of this debate is, first, to celebrate the rich social and economic history of the region, to consider the facts of our recent economic performance and then to offer some advice on how the Government could help the region in these challenging economic times.
	The north-east is a very special region of this country. It is blessed with areas of outstanding natural beauty bordering the North Yorkshire moors in the south, the matchless Northumbrian coastline in the east and the glorious Lake District to the west. The region is a region of contrasts, being voted home to the most tranquil county in England—Northumberland—and the party capital of Europe—the city of Newcastle. It is home to the Roman Wall and was the cradle of Christianity in England in Lindisfarne and Holy Island. The north-east was the home to some of the greatest minds of the industrial revolution: George Stephenson, "father of the modern railways"; Joseph Swan, inventor of the electric light bulb; Charles Parsons, developer of the first steam turbine that transformed maritime transport; Sir William Armstrong, who harnessed hydraulic power for cranes and power generation; and Cleveland Bridge and Dorman Long who built many of the world's iconic bridges, including the Sydney Harbour Bridge.
	Until the early 20th century, north-east shipyards were responsible for building one-third of the world's shipping. The coalfields of Durham and Northumberland were literally the powerhouse of the industrial revolution. While the Tyne and the Wear dominated trade in coal and shipbuilding, the Tees soon came to dominate in steelmaking and chemicals. The first trading estate in the world was built on the Team Valley in Gateshead. More recently in the 1980s, Sir John Hall pioneered the out-of-town shopping centres based on the Metro Centre in Gateshead. Sir Lawrie Barratt changed the face of suburban Britain through development of modern housing estates. Sir Peter Vardy's innovation in car finance made cars affordable for the first time for millions of hardworking families. Moving right up to date: Greggs, the national chain of food outlets based in Newcastle employs 19,000 people and exports the great, legendary ham and pease pudding stottie to the discerning culinary audience around the country. Sage business management software is now used by 5.8 million businesses worldwide. It is headquartered in Newcastle and employs more than 14,000 highly skilled people in the north-east and California. Kilfrost started off life de-icing football pitches and is now a world leader in aviation de-icing technology with substantial operations in North America and Asia. SMD, CDC Marine and Tomkins form a cluster of companies leading the world in sea bed engineering, now in demand around the world for the construction of offshore wind farms.
	Today, a third of all UK pharmaceutical production happens in the north-east at operations such as GlaxoSmithKline Beecham's Barnard Castle plant. Teesside hosts the largest polyethylene plant in the world operated by SABIC. The Biofuels Corporation operates the world's largest biodiesel plant at Seal Sands. The largest bio-ethanol plant is operated by Ensus. All in all, the north-east process industry cluster employs more than 40,000 people directly, most of them in highly skilled engineering posts.
	The future development of electric vehicles is one in which the north-east has a sustained and historic competitive advantage. It is already host to Smith Electric Vehicles, which manufactures milk floats. Indeed, it is the largest manufacturer of electric vehicles in the world, based in Washington, which is also, coincidentally, or perhaps strategically appropriately, the home of the largest and most productive car plant in Europe—Nissan.
	The ports of the Tyne and the Tees remain vibrant and Seaham, Blyth and the Wear are receiving significant new investment. PD Ports is planning a £300 million deep sea container port called Northern Gateway, which could employ 5,500 people. The Tyne & Wear passenger transport metro is the only underground public transport system in England outside London, serving more than 40 million passenger journeys a year. Overall, the ability to take the innate skills and discipline of engineering, which were first honed in the industrial revolution, and apply them to the challenges of the modern era, particularly as regards low-carbon and renewable energies, offers great opportunities to the north-east.
	We have two world-class research universities in Newcastle and Durham. We have three cutting edge centres of excellence established by the regional development agency: the Centre for Process Innovation on Teesside; the Centre for Nanotechnology, Microtechnology and Photonics (Cenamps) in Newcastle; and the New and Renewable Energy Centre at Blyth.
	The inspired slogan developed by the regional development agency One North East is "passionate people, passionate places", and this perfectly captures the essence of the region. Recognising that no region can be adequately summed up in a range of economic indicators, but that no society can be sustained in the long-term by ignoring them, I offer some pause for thought.
	The north-east's GVA per capita, at £15,688, is the lowest of any region in England. The unemployment rate at 8.3 per cent is second only to the West Midlands. The proportion of workless households, at 23.7 per cent, is the highest proportion in Britain. On the positive side, the north-east is the only region in the country which exports more per head than it imports. The level of business failures is a cause for concern. According to Equifax, the north-east saw a 41.2 per cent year-on-year increase in the level of business failures. What makes this more concerning is that the north-east already has the smallest business stock in the UK and the lowest number of start-ups in the country.
	The contribution of the public sector to the north-east economy, according to the CEBR is 57 per cent and rising. This is of concern simply because it exposes us to potential downturns in the recession, which may come with inevitable reductions in public expenditure. This dependence is illustrated by employment. Over the past eight years, public services employment in the north-east has increased by 47,000, while manufacturing employment has fallen by 58,000.
	I do not want to indulge in point scoring. I recognise that the Government care deeply about the region, and many good things are happening. However, my criticism is that they have often failed to present the north-east with the realities of the economic situation until it is too late and we are left with a series of abrupt social upheavals, rather than gradual adjustments to the new realities.
	The truth is that we need to ratchet up our productivity as a region, and that can only be done through: skills, especially apprenticeships and the development of science graduates; enterprise—shaking the culture through schools and the careers service whereby the option of leaving education to create a job rather than getting a job is positively encouraged; investment in physical capital, which is being held back by the lack of liquidity in the capital markets, but is desperately needed for a region that depends so heavily on manufacturing and engineering; and embracing competition as a driver of innovation and efficiency.
	I suggest a number of areas in which the Government could do more to increase our competitiveness as a region. The north-east already suffers in terms of public expenditure on transport per head of the population, which has been only £577 per head from 2001 to the present time, compared with £1,637 per head in London. The most important element needed is the upgrading of the western bypass of the Al(M) at Gateshead, and moving to a systematic enhancement by dualling the A1 north of Newcastle.
	The Government should give every possible support to working with the Hitachi team as they consider the options for awarding a contract to build 1,400 high-speed train carriages in Gateshead, which would return train manufacturing to the home of the railways. The Government should seek a meeting with Tata, the parent group of Corus, to see what could be done for Teesside Cast Products, where 2,000 jobs are under threat. This is a profitable business, and is a strategic plant and asset. It has been undermined because of the scurrilous way in which two steel manufacturers—one Italian and another South Korean—have reneged on their contracts. The Government should be robust in searching for those contracts to be honoured and for a buyer for the plant.
	Strategic air links are very important for a peripheral region such as the north-east—nowhere more so than on Teesside. The air link from London Heathrow to Teesside was ended in March of this year. In 1995, Heathrow served 21 domestic destinations. Today it serves only six. For an area such as Teesside, which depends deeply upon the petrochemical and processing industries, it is vital that that link is reinstated.
	Only 660 new social homes were constructed in the region, and that issue should be focused on. The Government should ensure that Northern Rock is returned to the private sector as soon as possible. The management team of Gary Hoffman has done a phenomenal job of turning around the bank.
	In conclusion, we can celebrate a huge number of good things about the north-east of England. If we are honest about our problems, strategic about our investment and our actions, and, inevitably, proud of our history, we can ensure that the socio-economic future for the north-east is not only good, it is great.

Baroness Quin: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bates, on securing this debate and on his choice of subject. Indeed, it is a pity that in only five minutes it is not possible to pick up on many of the points that he very eloquently made. I pay tribute to his commitment to the north-east and I found myself in agreement with many of the points that he made. It was good that he referred to Joseph Swan. It is tragic that Joseph Swan, unlike that other brilliant inventor Edison, was not quite so good at publicity. For that reason, Swan's reputation is not really appreciated, even here in the UK—never mind world wide. I very much echo the noble Lord's points about Joseph Swan and his wonderful contributions.
	The noble Lord and I have long been associated with Gateshead in the north-east. Perhaps he would join me in paying tribute to what the Gateshead local authority has achieved in recent years in the wonderful facilities that it has given to the region as a whole on the Gateshead side of the banks of the River Tyne, and to the way that Gateshead has shown that not only do we have successful firms in the region, but we actually have successful local authorities, which could very well be described as public entrepreneurs.
	It is also good that Newcastle and Gateshead have increasingly joined together in recent years and that, instead of looking at each other with a degree of antagonism across the River Tyne, they now work very closely in partnership for the good of their residents in both localities, and for the good of the region as a whole.
	It is also refreshing that a member of the Conservative Party recognises the importance of regions in this country, as well the importance of towns, cities and rural areas. I hope that the noble Lord will use his influence—particularly with his Front-Bench colleagues in another place—to raise the profile of regions such as the north-east and make sure that they have appropriate structures, such as regional development agencies, to promote future regional and economic prosperity if that party comes to be in a position of power.
	By holding this debate at a time of economic downturn, following the dramatic financial turbulence of the past year, all of us who are attached to the north-east will be concerned that the region does not disproportionately lose out and is not disproportionately adversely affected by our economic difficulties. I hope that my noble friend can be reassuring on this point. All of us here will remember the terrible experience of the 1980s recession in the north-east, which was possibly unique in that all its industries went into steep decline at the same time—coal, steel and shipbuilding. The current economic downturn, so far, feels very different from that; but none the less we need to ensure that the north-east can come through it strengthened for the future, not weakened.
	The north-east has many strengths. I was struck by the fact that it has a positive trade balance and an export-led economy, while retaining an important manufacturing base, which the noble Lord, Lord Bates, referred to. The Government have also channelled resources into the region, particularly in health and education, and I have seen the dramatic effects of that expenditure on the area of the north-east that I used to represent in another place.
	In five minutes it is not possible to raise all the issues that I should like to, but I conclude on two—one very local, one regional. The first concerns a highly successful firm in my former constituency which, unusually for the north-east, has its research and development base as well as its manufacturing there. It is concerned about current migration rules which might hinder it in training a small number of overseas graduates each year. While there is no time to explore this issue in detail, I should like to write to my noble friend about it and ask if she could look into it, in support of my honourable friend in another place.
	The second issue concerns the repatriation of the Lindisfarne Gospels to the north-east of England, for which there has been a vigorous cross-party campaign for a number of years, which the former Bishop of Durham, the Right Reverend Michael Turnbull, to whom I pay warm tribute, was active in pursuing in your Lordships' House.
	There have been many improvements in the north-east, and much help from government; but we need to do more to make sure that the region prospers in future. That will be good news for all its residents, as well as for our country as a whole.

The Lord Bishop of Newcastle: My Lords, I have been privileged to serve the people of the north-east for the past 11 years. I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bates, for initiating the debate. The north-east is indeed a very special place. Over the past 11 years, the region has experienced a considerable amount of change. I will make four brief points as we look to the future.
	Some of the change has been very visible: new developments and new cultural projects that are important symbols of renewal, such as the quayside along both banks of the Tyne, mentioned by the noble Baroness; the Sage and the Baltic; the Institute of Modern Art in Middlesbrough; Alnwick garden; and the Angel of the North. Just as important, though less dramatic and less obviously symbolic, are the new schools, hospitals, colleges, redevelopments of brownfield sites, residential developments and business parks throughout the region. At least parts of the region look and are very different from 10 years ago.
	Other changes are less visible, but highly significant. The economy has changed: we now have a post-industrial economy that previous generations would not have recognised and could not have imagined. There has been the dramatic decline in manufacturing and the expansion of the service sector, especially public sector services. The largest employers in Newcastle are the hospitals, the universities, the DSS—known locally as "the Ministry"—and the local authority. According to recent research by Fred Robinson of St Chad's College in Durham—this is a sobering thought—more people in the north-east now work in shops than in factories. There is little doubt that the growth of the public service sector has saved us from even more serious economic difficulties. As the noble Lord, Lord Bates, indicated, that makes the north-east particularly vulnerable and likely to be badly affected by the cuts in public expenditure that we all fear in the coming years.
	Thirdly, there is still the north-south divide, which is getting ever wider. The north-east still lags far behind the south of England on all the indicators. Within the region, too, there are great contrasts, perhaps greater than ever. Put simply, Easington and Hexham live in different worlds. The north-east is still the least prosperous region in the United Kingdom, and has a great deal of catching up to do if it is to become more aspirational, more entrepreneurial and more open to, and accepting of, change. The Barnett formula is still a major handicap and urgently needs revisiting. It is particularly notable how disadvantaged our region is in relation to our neighbour immediately to the north.
	In summary, I am excited by what has been achieved, but anxious about some parts of the future, because we are the least prosperous region and our economy has structural weaknesses. The recession, together with rising unemployment, is a major threat to our future. I am anxious, too, because of the difficult circumstances faced by many of our young people. Today, 25 per cent of children in the city of Newcastle live in poverty—that is one in four. The figure for the whole region is even higher—29 per cent. That is why government initiatives like Sure Start and New Deal have been so welcome. Yet in some of my parishes—this is not unique to the city of Newcastle—three generations of some families have never worked. On some of our estates, 80 per cent of males over 16 are in receipt of benefit. Poverty remains the stubborn, overriding problem—the awful, grinding, multiple deprivation that so many experience, not only in the inner-cities and on the outer estates, but, increasingly and often hidden, in the rural parts of the region.
	What do we need for the future? We need a new Barnett formula, a regional development agency—established by whoever forms the next Government—with focused regional policies to support and develop some of the new industries, not least in renewable energies, that are beginning to be developed. We need investment in transport. When is the A1 going to be dualled? We must be the only region in the country that does not even have a dual carriageway running through it. Above all, we need the recognition that the people are our most precious and important asset. The sense of identity, place and community still survives. All our policies—local, regional and national—must put our people first, to give them hope and confidence to develop the new and essential skills that will be needed for our region in the future.

Lord Patten: My Lords, being a strong believer in one nation, I thought it entirely appropriate that someone coming from the English region that is furthest from the north-east should speak in support of my noble friend tonight, expressing solidarity from the deepest south-west of England.
	I greatly admire the north-east, and its greatest resource is its people—that was the note on which the right reverend Prelate ended. He was too modest to point out to your Lordships that the north-east has the highest number of Christians of any English region— something that should be celebrated. The noble Baroness, Lady Quin, mentioned regions. Regional development agencies may have a role, but I note that the very sensible people of the north-east—78 per cent of them—voted in 2004 against having the incubus of a regional assembly imposed on them by a Labour Government whom a majority of them must have voted for. That shows the great common sense of people in the north-east.
	As we have heard tonight, the north-east is particularly lucky to have such a powerful, persistent and eloquent advocate as my noble friend Lord Bates—truly a regional treasure in every sense of the word. In supporting him tonight, I have four questions to ask the Minister. The first is whether the fact that the north-east still has the lowest GDP of any English region is a matter of any concern to her and to the Government, and to ask whether she will pause in her speech for a moment to tell the House what the Government have done since 1997 to address this issue at the heart of the socio-economic prospects for people in the north-east.
	Secondly, are the Government satisfied that the region—one of their political heartlands—is getting its fair share of public expenditure and effort, whether for the modernisation of transport links—again, to which the right reverend Prelate referred—or excellence in training or whatever else?
	Thirdly, does the Minister share my deep concern that as Scotland and England—alas—drift further apart, any north-eastern disadvantages in socio-economic expenditure and gross domestic product are being more starkly compounded by the much greater per capita socio-economic expenditure north of the border in Scotland? This uncomfortable fact will become progressively more uncomfortable as we see the institutional frontier between our two countries becoming more entrenched. I must tread delicately here. Some, as it were, Scottish characteristics are present in the north-east, ranging from the highest rate of male heart attacks in England to the highest number of students likely to pick a university in their home region—75 per cent of students in the north-east come from that region. The figure for Scotland is 95 per cent. This is not good for one-nation mobility and people learning from as well as with each other.
	Fourthly and last, does the Minister feel, as we slowly come out of the recession, with capital costs and long-term interest rates being that much lower, that an energetic region like the north-east will gain most—as my noble friend Lord Bates said in his formidable speech—by exploiting its skills in software, systems engineering, clean energies and in biosciences, and by building on those firm foundations, as it once did so splendidly on coal, ships and chemicals?

Lord Foster of Bishop Auckland: My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Patten. He and I entered the other place together in 1979 and have been political opponents ever since, but I agreed very much with what he said. I also congratulate the noble Lord who initiated the debate and pay tribute to the very eloquent way in which he has very quickly become a strong advocate for his own region. He was a very good constituency MP, if I may say so, and also rather a good Government Whip, and I am delighted to see him appear on the Front Bench opposite from time to time.
	My own credentials for intervening in this debate are that I have been an acute observer of the north-east economy for at least 50 of my 72 years. I was born and educated in the region before I went away to the noble Lord's university, Oxford. The whole of my extended family was scarred by the dreadful experiences of the 1920s and 1930s, and that has given me a passion against unemployment and for economic prosperity and the abolition of poverty, which lives with me still.
	I have been a practitioner in the realm of economic development in the north-east for almost 40 years, having headed up economic development at Tyne and Wear in 1974 and having been chairman of the North of England Development Council, the predecessor of the predecessor of One North East, in 1974. Of course, I have seen different Governments and different economic policies come and go. Some of them have been better for the region and some have been worse. From about 1994 onwards, I saw the continuous economic growth which went all the way through the Blair Government and, sadly, ended at about the time of the Northern Rock debacle, the credit crunch and the global crisis. During that long period, I saw the economy of the north-east utterly transformed, as were the riversides of Tyne and Wear and the Tees.
	The infrastructure was transformed too but, more importantly, we saw all five universities punching their weight in the economic development of the region. There is still some way to go but it is a very welcome development. We also saw the growth of entrepreneurship. Historically, following the glorious days of which the noble Lord spoke—of Swan, Armstrong and all the wonderful entrepreneurs of that generation—our region became far too wedded to large organisations and entrepreneurship fell by the wayside. It had grown extensively during the long period of economic growth, but it still has a long way to go. I have long been an advocate of SME development and micro-business development, and I criticise the many small business agencies of successive Governments which have talked the talk but very often have failed to walk the walk. They have not given local entrepreneurs the kind of advice that they have needed. They have been given all kinds of other advice, often from failed business people, but not the sort of timely advice that the entrepreneur needs. Therefore, that is something for the Government to look at again. However, the region has been transformed and I am enormously proud of the resurgence that it has experienced, symbolised by the Baltic, the Millennium Bridge and the Alnwick gardens, among many other things.
	It looks as though my time has quickly disappeared. I am pleased to have taken part in the debate, although I wish I could have spoken for a couple of hours more.

Viscount Eccles: My Lords, I join in congratulating my noble friend on obtaining this debate, but I want to look back a little and ahead a little in considering the issue of creativity. The north-east used to be famous throughout the world for its creativity. At Middlesbrough, on one of the three rivers, in 1820 there were 25 people, two farms and a hermit's chapel. By 1853, Bolckow, who came to England in 1827, was the mayor and the Member of Parliament for Middlesbrough. He had created with Vaughan the modern iron-making, then to become the steelmaking, business.
	Gladstone went to Middlesbrough in 1846 and called it the Hercules of England, and there are many other such examples in the region. In 1833, the Stockton and Darlington railway reached Middlesbrough, and that is where passenger-type railways started. Then there is the Iron Bridge in Sunderland, and there are many other examples, including Bell Brothers, Dorman Long and the bridge over the Tyne—the prototype for the Sydney Harbour Bridge. However, everything that has happened in the north-east in the three rivers region since then does not match the creativity of that period. In many cases, it has been driven by very large companies whose headquarters are not in the north-east—not in Newcastle, Sunderland or Middlesbrough.
	Starting in the 18th century, Newcastle became, and remains today, famous for its glass. In fact, you will find Newcastle engraved glass achieving the best prices at Christie's, Sotheby's and other auctioneers. We also have the potteries. In Newcastle, we had Maling, Austin and Dixon, and Linthorpe in Middlesbrough with Dresser as the designer. There were also the potteries in Stockton, one of which used to spell Wedgwood wrongly on the bottom of its pottery so that no one thought that it was actually Wedgwood. These are now collectors' pieces. All that went with the disappearance of Jobling, which manufactured Pyrex in Sunderland.
	I do not need to go into the disappearance of all the pits and the iron ore from the Cleveland Hills because it was not of a suitable quality for today's iron and steelmaking. All sorts of things have happened on the three rivers. For example, there was the building of the Liberty ships in Sunderland, which in the war represented an amazing effort on the part of that shipyard. There is nothing equivalent today.
	We need to recreate the spirit of adventure and creation, but there are two preconditions to that. The first is that we have to remove centralisation, particularly in education, together with the idea that one way of developing creativity is the right one. I am sorry to disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, but the regional development agency—God bless it—is full of good endeavour but it will never be creative. Governments absolutely do not score on creativity and never will. Secondly, we need to make room for social leadership in the region, not by politicians but by independent institutions and individuals. We need many more decisions to be made by those who can lead and who are not in the official loop but are often defiant of authority. We need far fewer strategy and committee meetings, and the virtual disappearance of consultants. After all, if you cannot do it yourself, you become a consultant.

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bates, for introducing this debate, which has enabled those of us who live in the north-east to blow its trumpet. Of course, we are all very aware of some of the problems. One or two themes are running through the debate. The region has the lowest GDP and is dependent on the public sector. There are transportation problems, as the right reverend Prelate said, including the ever present problem of dualling the A1 throughout the country. I have spoken about that many times before, so I shall not do so today, but I hope that the Minister is well briefed on it and can perhaps say something about it. There is also the issue of a fair deal for those in Northumberland. I live in the very north of the north-east, in north Northumberland, right up against the Scottish border, so the fair deal and the Barnett formula are very close to my heart.
	I want to say a little about the differences that affect us in north Northumberland. We need more help with education and training and with communication—not just the transportation on the A1 but also internet access in rural areas. I shall say more about that in a minute. We need a fair deal. Our local government has been reorganised. Under the old system, we had six districts and a county. The rural areas received extra funding to deal with their problems, and the urban south-east—the Ashington and Blyth area—got extra funding to deal with the deprivation there, too. The area has all been put together in one authority and we do not get any of that now. I ask the Minister to look carefully at that. I know that the Secretary of State, John Denham, at CLG, is aware of this, but can we please have more pressure to ensure that we have a fair deal on funding?
	The take-up of further education and higher education in my area is very low. We have been particularly badly hit in Northumberland by the debacle of the Learning and Skills Council and the funding for further education colleges. Northumberland is the only county not to have benefited from the substantial budget of more than £20 billion already spent on the further education capital programme. Recently, the bid from Northumberland College has fallen apart, which means that in Berwick we shall not get a £20 million skills centre. I would like to quote from a letter from the principal of Northumberland College. She wanted me to bring this to the attention of the Minister. She says:
	"I do not believe Ministers are fully aware of the hugely destabilising effect the whole LSC capital funding debacle has had on individual colleges, made even worse by the subsequent announcements of a reduction in adult funding and demands for £500m efficiency savings, all at a time of economic recession. The FE sector historically has been able to help individuals and communities hit by mass redundancies retrain, finding new skills which equip them to access new employment opportunities ... Ironically, the college finds itself in a position of having to make some of its own staff redundant as a result of funding cuts and the hugely challenging aim to achieve a surplus against all the odds in one of the largest, and most sparsely populated county in the country".
	That sums up the problems that we have in further education, but we are miles from higher education. Berwick-upon-Tweed in north Northumberland is further from higher education than almost anywhere else in the country. A local group there are putting in a bid to HEFCE, under the auspices of A New "University Challenge". I hope that the Minister can ensure that we get some help on that front.
	We have already talked about the A1, but I am grateful to the Commission for Rural Communities, which has pointed out the problems that we have in north Northumberland with access to the internet. Three-quarters of rural internet users say that they use the internet for transactions, which is a larger proportion than of those who do not live in rural areas, but only 1.5 per cent of homes in villages and hamlets can access cable-based broadband services, whereas almost 60 per cent of urban homes can. That limits access to government services and to the full range of social benefits available, such as cheaper bills and healthcare diagnostics through the internet. The UK has the highest number of public services available online, but if you look at a map showing the spread of high-speed broadband in the country you will see that Northumberland has big blobs without it. That also affects people trying to get jobs. Only 31 jobcentres, out of a total of 868, are in rural areas.
	My time has run out and the Whip on the Front Bench opposite is indicating that I should wind up. I hope that the Minister can address some of these issues. I believe that north Northumberland is particularly disadvantaged.

Lord De Mauley: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Bates for bringing forward this debate today on a region that he knows so well—a fascinating, rugged and, as he said, beautiful part of our country. Its people, of which he is such an excellent example, are resilient and generous and reflect its countryside, which also contains some of our vital natural resources. It is a diverse region. Its urban areas clearly have very different characteristics from its rural areas. There are key differences, too, between each of its major urban areas. It is a spectacularly keen and capable sporting region.
	As we have heard this evening, not least from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle and the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, it is a region that has been through decades of structural change. Your Lordships will also well remember the tragedy, as the noble Lord, Lord Foster, said, of Northern Rock. The automotive and construction sectors have recently been particularly hard hit. It saw the largest increase in business failures of all regions in the UK last year, at over 40 per cent, rising at the end to nearly 60 per cent. Nissan and Corus, among others, have had well publicised problems and have laid off large numbers of people, adding to the hardship being suffered. Unemployment in the region is among the highest in the country, despite which many of the region's manufacturing businesses have trouble attracting higher-skilled engineers. The critical links in the supply chain—for example, in the auto-manufacturing sector—are especially vulnerable.
	Transport infrastructure, especially for freight, has also come in for criticism. My noble friends Lord Bates and Lord Patten, the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, and others have spoken of road transport. This is particularly worrying if the north-east is expected to maintain its exciting emerging pre-eminence in exports.
	A key challenge facing the region is its overreliance on the public sector. As government finances become ever more stretched, as the right reverend Prelate said, this will place it at considerable risk. Furthermore, while the Budget promises emphasis on infrastructure and green investment, as Simon Hanson of the FSB said to the North East Regional Committee of the other place on 5 June, not much of the promised investment is filtering down through the RDA to business. Tony Sarginson of the Engineering Employers' Federation says that such help as is available is confusing, complicated and difficult to access.
	However, it is not all bad news. Although the north-east has subsequently taken a knock, in the year to last September the region showed the highest growth in exports in the country. As the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, said, it was the only region with a positive balance of trade. Employers and unions are working together to maintain skills in businesses.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Foster, told us, the region has five universities, with respected excellence as a knowledge base, which will be essential to lifting us out of the recession. My noble friend Lord Eccles spoke of the importance of creativity. The presence of Sage, of which my noble friend Lord Bates spoke, shows that the region can produce the necessary highly technically literate people. The region is well placed to benefit from a national shift of emphasis from financial services in favour of manufacturing and there are early signs of promise in its green economy, to which my noble friend Lord Patten referred.
	We on these Benches recognise the region's potential and, as shown by the fact that we have three senior shadow Ministers responsible for different areas within it, we are 100 per cent committed to it. We believe that we must rebalance the region's economy, so that it does not rely proportionately so much on the public sector. We must revolutionise support for small businesses—ever more crucial in a recession. Across the country, 33 per cent of funding intended for them is lost in operating costs on its way through the RDAs and their organs. We would incentivise local government to encourage the start-up and expansion of local businesses, reform the business rates system and overhaul the hugely centralised system of bureaucracy.
	Noble Lords will be aware that we on these Benches are sceptical of too much national and regional government. We would focus the RDAs much more clearly on economic development—something that, in fairness, One North East has been better at than others—and demand improved delivery. We recognise, too, that life is not just about economics. The social advantages that my noble friend Lord Bates referred to are also important.
	Last but by no means least, as the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said, education and skills are crucial to the future of the north-east. As we have said in our debates on it, the apprenticeships Bill is so far a wasted opportunity. We look forward to another day in Committee on it on Thursday, when we will continue the process of trying to improve it to the benefit of all regions, not least the north-east.

Baroness Vadera: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bates, for his informative history, as well as for giving us the opportunity to discuss the prospects of the north-east region. As the noble Lord said, it is very special in historic, cultural and economic terms. It is also a region that, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle acknowledged, has transformed itself significantly in the past 10 years.
	In 1997, the north-east was at the bottom of the league table of English regions, in terms of gross value added and unemployment—a matter of great concern, in response to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Patten. It has since become the fastest growing of the nine English regions. The north-east economy has grown by 2.2 per cent a year in real terms since 1998, which compares with the average growth of just 1.1 per cent between 1990 and 1997. That has delivered a real change in the living standards and life chances of the people of the north-east. Traditional industries in the region have given way to new, knowledge-led enterprises based on innovation, entrepreneurship and international competitiveness. The region is gaining competitive advantage in sectors from healthcare to life sciences and process industries to renewable energy, many of which the noble Lord, Lord Bates, illustrated very effectively.
	That is in part a result of this Government's policy of supporting and investing in economic development in the north-east to strengthen enterprise and support job creation—a somewhat different approach to that of the Leader of the Opposition's favourite think-tank, Policy Exchange, which called for the people of the north to move south. We have indeed funded the north-east RDA significantly. One North East receives funding of £98 per head, more than any other RDA, and well above the average in England of about £44 per head. Although, as the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, says, it may not score on the creativity front, the RDA has a very successful track record. An independent evaluation found that, since 2002, One North East has generated £4.30 for every pound that it has spent and, in terms of the business support schemes, £11.60 for every pound that it has spent.
	I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Bates, acknowledged the performance of One North East; it is of course a shame that his conviction is not shared by the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley. Indeed, the Opposition have often called for the abolition of the RDAs, although there is some confusion in that policy with regard to the north.
	My noble friend Lady Quin rightly asked about the impact of the global recession on the north-east over the past year. Our assessment is that its economy was first and hardest hit at the start of the recession in the last six months of 2008. While Northern Rock was of particular symbolic importance, it was the region's continuing reliance on manufacturing that drove that early performance. Since then, while still contracting, the rate of decline has eased in comparison with other regions because of lower input costs, flexible working and competitive sterling.
	In addition to helping stabilise Northern Rock, our help to the north-east in the recession has allocated £46 million to frontline business support this year to ensure that viable companies can survive. This includes £6 million for its capacity fund to boost the skills supply in priority areas. The car scrappage scheme, which has 94,000 registered orders in the country, is directly supporting Nissan in the north-east, which has said that as a result of the scheme, it has resumed three-shift volume production and is recruiting extra workers. The car scrappage scheme will also increase demand for Corus steel. The Government have also offered Corus up to £5 million of funding for training to help protect jobs.
	The Government will never be complacent about the need to support businesses and individuals through the recession and to ensure that they recover in a way that allows them to compete in the global economy. The key to this recovery is a balanced economy that increases the productive base of every region, not relying on the south-east as the engine of growth. We are doing, and will continue to do, all we can in the north-east to combat the immediate effects of the recession, stimulate a sustainable recovery and improve its prosperity relative to other regions. As the noble Lord, Lord Bates, said, the key is to increase productivity based on skills, enterprise, innovation, exports and new industries, each of which I shall briefly comment on.
	There are significant challenges remaining in upgrading skills in the region, as the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, pointed out, but we should also celebrate the fact that the north-east has moved from being the second worst in level two skills in England to being in fourth position, an increase of 41 per cent since 1998 and the largest rise seen in the English regions. While I recognise the problems that the noble Baroness pointed out, the Higher Education Funding Council's university challenge has agreed to provide an extra £2.5 million to the region's five universities to equip businesses and individuals with new skills. I also assure the noble Baroness that we made a commitment in the Digital Britain report on universal access to broadband that will affect the regions that were discussed.
	My noble friend Lord Foster rightly focused on the importance of small businesses and enterprise. There has been some progress in forging an enterprise culture within the region. Of course, there are fewer people in business or aspiring to start a business in the north-east, but the region has grown its business stock at a faster rate than the national average for the past five years, and its early stage entrepreneurial activity has increased from 3.2 per cent to 5.1 per cent, therefore closing its gap with the rest of the United Kingdom, which has increased to 5.5 per cent.
	The north-east scores highly on innovation, and we are reinforcing that position. It has the greatest average annual domestic expenditure on research and development, running at 2.4 per cent per year since 1998. In 2007-08, One North East, the RDA, invested £45 million in programmes directly attributable to science and innovation. The region is also very strong on exports and runs a trade surplus. Until September 2008, the north-east enjoyed eight successive quarters of export growth and outperformed every other region in the United Kingdom. Although that fell back in the early part of this year, exports to key markets, emerging markets and growth markets, such as Brazil, China and India, are still growing, and we are supporting that through UKTI.
	In addition to exploiting overseas markets, the region is also attracting foreign direct investment. It had 53 inward investments in 2008-09 from the US, India, Japan, China, Sweden and Norway in sectors including autoelectronics, energy, life sciences and digital media. They are worth over £200 million in capital investment, will create almost 2,900 new jobs and will safeguard 1,400 existing jobs over the next three years.
	Looking to the future, the region already has expertise in developing green technologies from offshore wind to bioprocessing and has had the particular foresight to establish a new and renewable energy centre in Blyth. The offshore wind market alone could generate £3 billion for the regional economy and create between 15,000 and 30,000 jobs. We will work with north-east businesses to ensure that they reap these commercial rewards.
	I have not been able to address all the questions that have been asked, but I have made a note of all of them and I will answer any outstanding ones in writing. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bates, for the opportunity to showcase the north-east in this debate and to demonstrate the Government's commitment to building its economic strength, to developing new areas of expertise and to enabling the region to return to the sustained economic growth that it has managed to achieve since 1997.
	Sitting suspended.

Parliamentary Standards Bill
	 — 
	Committee (1st Day) (Continued)

Amendment 38
	 Moved by Lord Strathclyde
	38: Clause 5, page 3, line 37, at end insert "with or without amendments"

Lord Strathclyde: The amendment is pretty self-explanatory, but it is an opportunity to probe the Government's reason for deciding to give another place no option to decide whether to accept the code of conduct that it is offered. It is a small point but quite an important amendment, because if another place can suggest improvements to the code of conduct, it will not be limited to the nuclear option of rejecting it outright or accepting it whole. We in this House are very aware of the dangers of rejecting an entire document because it tends to throw out the baby with the bath water. Allowing only this way forward restrains many from expressing perfectly valid criticism.
	Under this amendment, my suggestion is that another place should be given the chance to amend the code. I know that it will have been consulted during the drawing-up of the code, but we all know the ways in which consultations can go. The real purpose behind this is to find out the thinking—there may be some very clear thinking going on, although there may not be—of the noble Lord and the noble Baroness on exactly why the Commons has not been given a chance to amend the code. What harm could such a step do? I beg to move.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I hope that I can display some clear thinking on this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has raised a valid and interesting point. I was disappointed that he did not think that the provision under Clause 3(4) in terms of the organisations that the IPSA must consult would meet his requirement. The Government have always accepted that the code of conduct on financial interests must be approved by the House of Commons, which is why the provision is in the Bill. It is also necessary that the code should work with the way in which the House does its business, which is why the IPSA is required to consult various bodies within the House as well as with MPs generally in drawing up the code. We see that as an extremely important part of the work of the IPSA in building confidence in terms of the general public. I also think that it is important to build confidence among MPs. I do see that this consultative process is a very important part of the way in which that should be done.
	The intention is for the House and individual MPs, as well as the various bodies and committees listed in Clause 3(4), to have ample opportunity to discuss the code as it is being developed. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, I accept that a balance has to be drawn here. We think that there is a difference between making sure that the House is satisfied with the code and that it will work, and giving the House the opportunity to rewrite the code, which I would caution against. It clearly is essential to delivering the objectives of this Bill for restoring public trust in Parliament that this part of the scheme should be seen as the responsibility of an independent body outside Parliament.
	The problem with the noble Lord's amendment is that the IPSA could present a code and the House could make radical changes to it. Although the resulting code would be still labelled the IPSA's code, with the amendments it might not be acceptable to the IPSA itself, which would be an untenable position. What would the IPSA do in those circumstances? I suppose that it might then have to undertake a review and attempt to present a revised version to the House. However, that would probably undermine the point of an independent code.
	We have tried to get the balance right. We think that Parliament should be asked to endorse the code and that the IPSA should go through a proper process of consultation and discussion with parliamentarians in the form I have suggested, but I would be wary of creating a situation where the code would be open to amendment and, because of that, it would not be the IPSA's code.

Lord Tyler: I was waiting to hear the Minister's explanation before contributing to the debate. There is a genuine dilemma here. I cannot think of circumstances in which the Speaker lays something before the House of Commons because he or she cannot speak to it. Who is going to introduce, explain and respond to comments by Members? This is a very unusual procedure. We have several former Members of the other place here this evening and it may be that my memory is less comprehensive than theirs, but I cannot think of circumstances where the Speaker has laid something before the House with any opportunity for serious examination. It is effectively a fait accompli if the Speaker of the House of Commons lays something before the House. Would the Minister address the particular issue of whether this has been discussed with the Speaker?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I must be wary of anticipating how the House of Commons itself will deal with this matter. The key question is whether we have the architecture right. Clearly it is for the Commons itself to decide how it would be asked to give its approval, but my understanding is that in circumstances where the Speaker is required to lay the scheme, the Leader of the House of Commons would in fact speak to it.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: I think there may be a clue to the answer. I have to say that the code in the other place was introduced some years after I left so I have no firsthand experience of it. The first resolution in July 1995 was that the House should endorse the principle of a code of conduct. In July 1996 a resolution introduced the code of conduct by approving the third report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges. The ninth report from the Committee on Standards and Privileges provided amendments to the code. The procedure in the other place has always been via the Committee on Standards and Privileges. The committee is asked to look at the code and suggest amendments. If amendments are produced, such as the one put forward on 14 May 2002, we can see that the resolution of the House was:
	"the Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members ... shall be amended as proposed in Annex 2 to the Report".
	There is an opportunity for amendments to be introduced under the existing procedure. It therefore seems to me that my noble friend's amendment seeks to find a way of building that process into the new structure.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, but we are talking about two different codes. I suspect that the code he is talking about is the code of conduct for MPs, whereas the code we are debating is the code of conduct on financial interests. They are different, and that is why the proposal, as I understand it, is that the Leader of the House would introduce it.

Lord Campbell-Savours: On the matter that my noble friend has just referred to, there is a lot of confusion in both Houses about the distinction between these two documents. I think that the House authorities should prepare something to clarify the position.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I know that very soon after a debate on an earlier part of the Bill, my noble friend offered to write a note to Members.
	My noble friend has made a helpful suggestion. I noticed earlier that we are talking about different codes and, if it will be helpful, I shall write to noble Lords to try to make this somewhat clearer than it is at the moment.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: As the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is not in his place, I hope that after he has read Hansard tomorrow he will not accuse me of being guilty of the offence known as supporting the Government. He sits behind them and obviously wants to disassociate himself totally with this measure. I hope the Official Opposition will not now accuse me of the same sin.
	Clause 5 is fine—it reminds me of the provisions for other codes of practice—because, unless I am quite mistaken, it starts with IPSA, the independent body, preparing the code; it gives the power to IPSA to keep it under review and to revise it, which seems sensible; and it then requires IPSA to fully consult all the proper authorities in the House of Commons. I take it that the Speaker, in laying the code, is acting formally—in other words, he is simply the mechanism, the trigger, by which the code is laid. It then does not come into effect until it is approved by a resolution of the House of Commons, by whom it is governed. There is therefore flexibility and consultation and, ultimately, the sovereignty of the House of Commons, as there should be. My difficulty is that I cannot find anything wrong with it.

Lord Higgins: One of the problems with the Bill is that the drafting seems to be extraordinarily strange in places. Is there any precedent whatever for the Speaker laying anything before the House of Commons? Is there legislation anywhere else which has a provision of this kind?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am not aware whether there is or is not. However, I am clear that this is a formal mechanism for allowing the code to be brought before Parliament. I understand that in allowing that to be considered, the Leader of the House would take responsibility for ensuring that it happened.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: It is my recollection that the original draft of the Bill said that the report would be laid by IPSA. However, it was pointed out that only a Member of the House is entitled to lay a report before the House of Commons and that in this case it should be the Speaker, and the Bill was amended in another place to introduce the word "Speaker" in subsection (5).
	In response to the earlier point, I have many resolutions in this book about Members' financial interests, declarations of financial interests and registration of financial interests. We are not talking about two different things in origin. They may be two different things now, but they were originally the same.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: That is right. The current system—the Green Book, the MPs' code of conduct—included guidance on financial interests. But we are talking about a new system where there will be a general code in relation to MPs and a code of conduct on financial interests. That is what we are discussing.
	As to the Speaker laying the code, my understanding is that the wording of this part of the Bill has been discussed with the House authorities to ensure that it is acceptable.

Lord Strathclyde: It has been a useful debate. I wanted to probe the Government's thinking and they have told us what it is. As a result of this, there is obviously confusion as to which codes we are talking about and the Minister has agreed to send out another explanatory note. It is extraordinary that this Bill will be law in a week's time and that, even in this House, where the Bill has been in the public domain for some weeks, there is still a great deal of confusion as to what it will mean. In another place, that confusion is even greater.
	I understand the Government's explanation about denying another place the ability to seek to amend the code; it is an argument. I hope that we never have anything in this place that would be imposed by an outside body without this House being able to have a say. However, this Bill has gone through the House of Commons. It may come to regret this provision, but we shall see. It is not the most important point that we shall be dealing with, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 38 withdrawn.
	Amendment 38A
	 Moved by Lord Cope of Berkeley
	38A: Clause 5, page 3, line 39, after "interests" insert "other than financial interests as a Minister of the Crown or Office Holder in the House of Commons"

Lord Cope of Berkeley: Earlier in our deliberations, I found myself moving an amendment which had the support of both Front Benches and, I think, of the Liberal Democrats and a large number of Cross-Benchers, which is not a very usual situation for me. However, I now seem to find myself moving an amendment which is opposed by both Front Benches—my own and that of the Government. The proposal which I wish to put before your Lordships is that the code should require members to register information about financial interests in a register to be maintained by IPSA. The financial interests of a large number of Members of another place, and of some in this place, too, are those of being a Minister of the Crown. I was a Minister of the Crown for quite a long time, throughout Margaret Thatcher's Prime Ministership and into that of John Major, which I declare as a past interest.
	The present arrangements do not require one, as far as I know, to declare that one is a Minister of the Crown in the documents. However, it is not only a huge financial interest, in the sense that one is paid more than a Back-Bench Member of Parliament, but also a big consumer of one's time. At one point, I was Security Minister in Northern Ireland; I spent part of the week in Belfast, part in London and part in my constituency. My constituents had every right to say to me—fortunately, comparatively few of them did—"What are you doing swanning off to Belfast and London? You're not looking after us". A very large number of hours in the week were taken up with my responsibilities in Northern Ireland, and the same was true of the various other jobs that I did. There is no doubt that it is a very big financial interest. In that sense, it should be declared in the code alongside any outside interests that a Member may have been pursuing a professional or other financial interest.
	I say in passing that it is in the interests of the House of Commons and good government that Back-Bench Members of Parliament are able to retain other jobs as well as their job of a Member of Parliament. I am a chartered accountant by original profession. I am extremely rusty and I know that if you do not practise your profession there quite quickly comes a time when you lose ground and are not up to date with the latest things. However much you read the professional press and so on and talk to others, you get out of date quite quickly. It is therefore in the interests of the body politic that Member of Parliaments should have continuing interests, some of which will bring them financial rewards. The two are by no means incompatible—and the case of Ministers makes the point, because a Minister, whichever department he or she is in, is obliged to spend a lot of time on ministerial work of one sort or another.
	He or she is also inhibited in what they say in Parliament or in Committee by the fact that they are Ministers and bound by collective responsibility. So being a Member of Parliament has a huge effect on one's conduct, a much greater effect than being a solicitor, accountant or farmer. It also has an effect on one's ability, in a direct sense, to be seen to be looking after one's constituents. Most of us manage to look after our constituents pretty well in the circumstances, but you cannot argue that it is irrelevant that someone is a Minister. To that extent, it is quite right to put it in the register and declare it along with any other more conventional financial interests. At the same time, it seems fairly obvious that Gordon Brown is the Prime Minister. Does he really need to state that in the register? Is it not just another complication?
	The main reason for moving my amendment is that the law should be precise about this matter. Otherwise, there will be controversy and different views about it as time goes on. If the intention is that the House of Commons should continue its present practice, under which ministerial office or being an office holder is not to be regarded as a financial interest from the point of view of the register, then the legislation should make that clear.
	I should also talk about the position of office holders; that is another past interest of mine, as noble Lords will know. There are not only Ministers but office holders such as Opposition Chief Whip, which position I had the honour to hold for a while, not so long ago. One is paid to do a job of work, a very all-consuming job, which takes a lot of time, energy and attention. I was also a Whip in the Commons but I was a Government Whip and therefore a member of the Government and a Minister, so it was different. The Opposition Whip and the Leader of the Opposition in the Commons come under the same provision, so I have included them in the amendment.
	I can see the argument: the Bill seems to require the disclosure of all financial interests; for that matter, Amendment 42, in the name of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, certainly requires these interests to be stated. What I think is unacceptable is that the Bill should not pronounce on this matter at all. From my point of view, the present system is satisfactory, and the amendment seeks to ensure that that continues. I beg to move.

Lord Strathclyde: As my noble friend Lord Cope pointed out, he and I have put down amendments which appear to oppose each other. That is not what my noble friend and I are about, so I am rather embarrassed if that is the impression that has been given.
	My noble friend Lord Cope has managed to draft an amendment that allows for the raising of the issue to which I wish to speak but without seeming to argue for an unworkable registration, or a potentially unworkable registration, of ministerial duties. Let me be clear: in Amendment 42 I am not seeking to suggest that Ministers should have to register their payments or all the time they spend on ministerial duties. What I was intending to identify, and what my amendment was designed to give me the opportunity to highlight, was the distinction the Government were drawing between different types of jobs. There appears to be a false distinction between the value of MPs having voluntary or government-paid jobs and the apparent harm caused by having a non-governmental job involving remuneration. In the first case, I hope that the Government would agree that it is of great benefit to Parliament to have people with hands-on knowledge of the real world. For example, knowing intimately the work that charities do at the grass roots or the difficulty of complying with reams of regulatory requirements can only improve the quality of the legislation that Parliament inflicts upon the people of this country.
	However, the Government appear not to agree—this is where I part company from them—that it is also of value to have MPs who know what it is like to have been at the coal-face of, for example, the legal profession or the medical profession. Both of these careers can be well remunerated and very time-consuming, and it is to many MPs' credit that they are willing to maintain these professions or any other job while also putting in a full day's work as a Member of Parliament. The example that my noble friend Lord Cope made as a Northern Ireland Minister was very compelling. Not only did he put the enormous hours into the work but he was also travelling over to the Province.
	I hope that the Minister, on behalf of the Government, will be able to explain why they have drawn the line in the way they have and why they are making what I believe to be a false distinction between voluntary and government jobs and those that are remunerated.

Lord Crickhowell: I do not believe that my noble friends Lord Cope or the Leader of the Opposition are actually on opposing sides of this; they are both addressing the same point. I strongly support my noble friend's amendment for all the reasons that I set out, I think quite powerfully, in my Second Reading speech, which I do not intend to repeat today.
	There is another reason for supporting my noble friend Lord Cope. A large number of Members of the other place pressed for a similar amendment there, and many argued on exactly the same grounds that he has that this should be registered, if for no other reason than to show the preposterous and deeply damaging nature of the existing code. We are in difficulty here because, regrettably, that code was of course agreed by the parties before the Bill came before them. It is one of the most damaging things that has happened to the other place for a very long time. I set out in my Second Reading speech my reasons for thinking that.
	If either of these amendments emphasises and draws attention to the damage that has potentially been done by the existing code and the preposterous nature of that code, brilliantly exposed by Mr Frank Field in his speeches in the other place, it will be all for the good. One thing that cheers me up about all this is that Clause 5 starts by saying,
	"The IPSA must prepare a code".
	My hope is that that will be a completely new code of financial interests that will not contain these damaging and preposterous rules which mean that people have to declare every single contract, exactly how much time they have spent on it and exactly how much they have been paid for it.
	If those rules are to be observed, it is highly desirable that an amendment of this kind should go into the Bill, if only so that one's constituents can then understand the facts of the situation and the fact that most Ministers are probably more heavily committed to work other than the straightforward parliamentary work of a constituency Member than anyone with a second job outside.
	This is a valuable amendment. If it prompts IPSA, when it comes to consider these matters, to re-examine the whole issue of detailed declarations required by the existing code, we will have made a real advance. I support my noble friend.

Lord Tyler: I have a non-interest to declare. As the noble Lord, Lord Cope, says, the opposition Chief Whip in the House of Commons receives a salary and therefore holds paid office, but of course the Liberal Democrat receives not a penny extra. Nor, of course, do I have any previous ministerial experience. That goes without saying.
	I am glad that those who have tabled the two amendments in this group have told us that they are absolutely compatible. I am afraid that to anybody outside this place they seem to be aiming in completely opposite directions. But at least this gives us an opportunity of thinking very seriously about a problem that has already been referred to by Members of the Committee.
	If one is a purist—and I am not—anything that makes a clear distinction between parliamentary duties and ministerial duties must be a step towards the separation of powers. Since we have in this country parliamentarians who serve in the Executive—that is one of our distinctive characteristics—it is rather important to get this right. If we are trying to distinguish between parliamentary duties and ministerial duties, under which heading does the time spent in the House of Commons come? There will be some fun if we are not careful about this issue.
	Similarly, if we are going to be pragmatic, we should recognise that the public feel some anxiety and may seek some reassurance that MPs are not moonlighting in a way that not only dilutes their commitment to public service but potentially affects their judgment, which is of course a much more serious issue. It is not just a question of whether they are paid to do something else. It is whether, as a result of that occupation, they are affected in their parliamentary duties.

Lord Campbell-Savours: I cannot understand the noble Lord's contribution, having had to listen to his contribution only six weeks ago in the political parties Bill when we discussed an amendment that would have done precisely this prior to elections. He has totally reversed his position.

Lord Tyler: Not at all. I am trying to illustrate that there is a genuine dilemma here. I hope that all Members of the Committee will accept that. It is important to try and distinguish between the work of a parliamentarian as a Minister and any work they do outside Parliament in other walks of life. I think that is where these amendments come from. That is the point of this—

Lord Crickhowell: I really am appalled that a former Member of the other place could use this disreputable phrase "moonlighting". Is he really suggesting that all the former lawyers in the other place, some of whom became distinguished law officers of the Crown, were moonlighting? Is he suggesting that all the other hugely distinguished Members who have contributed and had other jobs were moonlighting? That is an extraordinary assertion to come from a former Member of the other place. I hope that he withdraws it. It gives a totally false impression.
	I would add that, if you were to take that back into history, people like Winston Churchill were undoubtedly moonlighting. It is nonsense, and we really must get away from such nonsense.

Lord Tyler: The noble Lord clearly was not listening to me. I did not say that I was accusing anybody of moonlighting. I said—and it is a fact of life—that some members of the public think that if Members of Parliament are doing anything other than their parliamentary duties, they are moonlighting. The noble Lord can argue about whether he does, or I should, take that view. All I am saying is that the public take that view and, sadly, the media encourage it.
	I happen to agree with the noble Lord; if he had been a bit more patient, he would have allowed me to reach this point. The present House of Commons suffers from not having people who have what is called "hinterland", or experience. I do not want to go into yet another of my personal reminiscences, but I was lucky enough to be defeated in the autumn of 1974 and went away and had a real job for 18 years. I came back, I suggest, a much better Member of Parliament in 1992 because I had had that experience of hiring and firing, working in and running companies.
	There is a difficult problem if we are, in either of these amendments, assuming that any minute that is not spent in the House of Commons is somehow to be treated as being some form of—yes, I say it—moonlighting. There are all sorts of occupations that many Members have. It might be charitable, it may be pro bono, but the fact is that by concentrating here on the issue of financial support, we would not take that into account. We are in danger of dancing on the top of a pin on this issue. Neither amendment really adds to the Bill in a way that is helpful and constructive. I hope that when IPSA produces its code, it will do so with an open mind on these issues.
	Both Houses of Parliament benefit from those who have extensive experience outside politics and outside Parliament. Whether that is past experience or some current experience is not the big issue. The big issue is whether they are unable to do their jobs as parliamentarians effectively because they are distracted either by time constraints or financial inducement. That is a genuine issue and a difficult balancing act. In my view, the key issue is transparency. The electors are entitled to know what Members are or are not doing. I hope that that will be the guidance that is given to IPSA in due course. I wait with interest to hear how the Minister intends to respond to these two—it seems to me—entirely contrary suggested additions to the Bill. In doing so, I hope the Government will take the approach that the key issue is that the electorate should know clearly what is going on in the most transparent way possible.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I give a footnote to what my noble friend has just said. A great service has been done by tabling these two amendments so that we can have a brief debate on the issues. The problem is that the underlying problems of the House of Commons cannot be tackled by what we are now considering in the Bill. The underlying problems are, first, that MPs are paid too little; they should be paid at least at the same rate as, for example, the head teacher of a school. Secondly, they sit in the mornings, which means that it is very hard for members of the legal profession to carry on practising in court. Thirdly, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher—then Mrs Thatcher—wisely reduced the top rate of taxation to 40 per cent, which meant that the lawyers of ability—who would otherwise have gone into the House of Commons—decided that they would rather keep the money and stay outside. Fourthly, since 1977, in my direct experience, lobbies have emerged in a completely different way from anything before 1977.
	It began, as I recall, at the time of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act, and it mushroomed from that period. Andrew Marr's excellent history goes into all that. To construct a House of Commons now of full-time, well paid professionals is very difficult and way beyond anything that the Bill is able to do. The Bill deals with an important subject, but does nothing that can appease the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, or me. Like him and my noble friend, I entirely agree that it was admirable that Roy Jenkins, for example, in opposition, wrote all those great books and made money in doing so; that men such as Denis Healey had a large cultural hinterland; and that many of our great Ministers have had great jobs.
	When I came to the Bar, many centuries ago, the House of Commons was full of very able lawyers in opposition, who acted as an opposition civil service in the afternoons and evenings. Men like Frank Soskice and Elwyn Jones would come out of court at 4.15 pm. They would spend the afternoon and evening drafting amendments, briefing the Labour Party in opposition and performing a great service. All that has almost completely gone and it is hard to find many outstanding lawyers in the House of Commons. There are some, of whom I would say—if I may—that Dominic Grieve is an outstanding example, but there are not very many. The Bill is not about this problem. The Bill is about trying to ensure full disclosure to deal with the mischief that has arisen in the recent past.
	I entirely agree with my noble friend that one cannot draw a distinction between Ministers and other Members of Parliament so long as we do not have a separation of powers between the Executive and the legislature. It is simply a constitutional heresy to think that we could. Therefore, it is important that Ministers and former Ministers should be subject to exactly the same disclosure requirements as everybody else.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: I am truly glad that there is no difference of opinion on the Benches opposite about whether ministerial salaries should be declared in the Register of Interests. That point has been clearly explained. I recall the trenchant views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, at Second Reading. I am very grateful to him for drawing our attention to Clause 5(1), which explicitly states that it will be for IPSA itself to draw up the code. I trust that it will be able to bring about the relevant changes, if that is what the noble Lord wishes. In doing so, IPSA will consult relevant parties, but the final result will not necessarily be the same as the current code. I think that that addresses that question.
	Amendment 38A appears to say that the interests of a Minister are not to be registered, but Amendment 42 would require the specified financial interests to be registered to include,
	"payment as, and hours worked as, a Minister".
	The Government agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, in that regard. We do not think that it is necessary to spell this out in the Bill but we are certainly opposed to any suggestion that working as a Minister is a second job in the same way as an interest outside Parliament would be. That is not to say that MPs should not have a very wide hinterland.
	There is, of course, no mystery about the work of Ministers. I fully recognise the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that Ministers can and do look after the interests of their constituents as well as fulfilling their ministerial tasks. That Ministers are Ministers is a matter of public record, as are their salaries, although I accept that the hours they work are not. The key difference between a Minister, a lawyer and an accountant is that a Minister carries out his or her work within Parliament. It is an integral part of our system that Ministers are full Members of Parliament. As noble Lords have said, we are not like France; we do not have the separation of powers. We value the connection that continuing to be a constituency MP gives those who serve as Ministers in the House of Commons. That is something that we all agree on. It enhances the contribution Members make as MPs and as Ministers.
	I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, that the code will address the issue of transparency. That is of fundamental importance for our democratic system. However, I reiterate that nothing in the Bill prevents MPs having outside interests, as the other place has already decided; it simply provides that such interests should be registered so that there is no ambiguity about an MP's motives for raising a matter. As I explained earlier, a new code will be devised by IPSA. With that, I trust that both these amendments will be withdrawn.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am grateful to those who have contributed to this short debate. There is consensus that it is a good thing for Members of another place to continue to have outside interests in addition to being Ministers and office holders. We were told when the rise of professional lobbyists started; I think that it started a little before the date that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, suggested. When I first entered another place, the most efficient lobby, by a considerable degree, was the National Farmers' Union. It was extremely experienced at lobbying and had done it for many years, although it was not alone in the field. I entirely accept that, since then, there has been a huge rise in the number of professional lobbyists and, for that matter, a decline in the number of MPs with substantial outside interests.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I quite agree, but I was trying to say something else—not regarding the National Farmers' Union but about the rise in the number of public relations firms lobbying on behalf of other interest groups, which very much began in the middle to late 1970s.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: We should not argue about the history. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said that it was wrong that MPs should be influenced by what they do outside. I understand and concur with the sentiments that he was trying to express. At the same time, however, we are all, in a way, saying that lawyers should be influenced by the fact that they are up to date with the law and that they are appearing in court as well as taking part in debates in the House of Commons. The same applies to the various other professions. Someone who has an interest in farming, for example, but who has not been involved in it for some years will be frightfully out of date about how it all works, how the markets are moving, how the subsidies work and all the rest of it. Unless you are continually engaged, you very quickly get out of date, and the same is true in all sorts of other areas.
	Those matters relate to the general debate that lies behind my amendment, which was intended, as the Leader of the House said, to ensure that interests as a Minister or an office holder in the House of Commons should not be required to be registered—which is the case at present. The noble Baroness said that it is not necessary to state that in the Bill. I find that I am on the same side as her except as regards whether it is necessary to state that in the Bill. I will take her word for it on this occasion and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 38A withdrawn.
	Amendments 39 to 42 not moved.
	Debate on whether Clause 5 should stand part of the Bill.

Lord Strathclyde: I have tabled a stand-part Motion to explore the ramifications of Clause 5, which establishes a statutory code of conduct under the aegis of IPSA.
	This part of the Bill has had an extremely complicated passage through another place. The original proposals consisted of two clauses: one related to a register of financial interests, and the declaration of those interests during Commons proceedings, and the other acknowledged the Nolan principles. Those proposals now look very different. We have lost any reference to the Nolan principles and we have lost any requirement as to the proper declaration of interests. The question of just what Clause 5 is seeking to achieve is, therefore, more than a little obscure.
	In its current form it comprises two points: maintenance of the register of financial interests, and the prohibition of paid advocacy. Both, as the Bill is currently drafted, are subject to investigation by the commissioner, as established by the Bill, and are therefore subject to referral to the Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges for disciplinary proceedings. Breaches of this code in both regards are also, at the moment, to be criminal offences.
	However, yet another version of the Bill will be available for the Report stage on Monday. Incidentally, can the Government indicate what will be the earliest time for the reprinting of the Bill? Government amendments have indicated that the commissioner will investigate only breaches of the register, not the possibility of paid advocacy, and that only breaches of the rules about the register will become a criminal offence.
	To make matters even more complicated, there is a rumour that the Government are to remove that offence too, so that a breach of the register will also be a matter only for the Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges. I would welcome any clarification from the noble Baroness on whether the rumour has any basis in fact. It is extremely relevant to our discussions on the clause.
	The twisting and turning that the Government have demonstrated on the clause suggest that they are seeking to ensure merely that some sort of statutory code of conduct—any sort of statutory code of conduct—remains in the Bill. They appear to have lost sight of what the code is intended to achieve. Clause 5(1) limits the code of conduct to matters concerning the register and the prohibition on paid advocacy relating to registered interests. The commissioner will be able only to investigate breaches of the register. What, therefore, does subsection (8) add? What is the purpose of including it in the code of conduct? Any breaches of proper parliamentary behaviour—which paid advocacy certainly is—will continue to be a matter for the existing parliamentary commissioner and for the Commons committee. Why will IPSA be involved?
	My second point is intended to probe further the Government's intentions on what the register of financial interests will look like. We have had debates here and in another place about the possibility of excessive registration requirements for MPs. Such requirements would be extremely harmful to the effective operation of another place. Will the noble Baroness give us greater clarity about what sort of registration requirements the Government envisage that IPSA will establish? We know that the Kelly commission is looking at allowances and that his independent recommendations, formed after several months of consideration and debate, will be the basis for the scheme established under Clause 3. On what independent report will IPSA base Clause 5?
	The current guidelines are in such a state that the Secretary of State has admitted that any breach of them would be impossible to discipline because of the difficulty of deciding whether the breach was inadvertent. It is clear that the guidelines must be rationalised; but what criteria will IPSA apply to this? Having played a part in the detailed debate on Clause 5, I will say that the whole purpose of the clause is now shrouded in mystery. The purpose of giving notice of my intention to oppose the clause was to give the noble Baroness the opportunity to shed light, not on each subsection but on the philosophy that underlines Clause 5.

Lord Higgins: I was surprised by what my noble friend has just said. If I understand him correctly, he has information that the Government are intending radically to rewrite Clause 5 on Report. If that is not right, I do not understand the point that he made. He asked when we were likely to have more information on that. No doubt the Leader of the House will enlighten me.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I will make one small point. The code is prepared by IPSA after consultation. It must be laid before the House of Commons and does not come into effect until approved by a resolution of the House of Commons. What happens if the House of Commons declines to approve the resolution?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: Noble Lords have asked many interesting questions. First, I will clarify the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked a question in relation to Clause 8(2), which refers to offences. It states:
	"A member of the House of Commons commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse, the member fails to comply with a requirement included by virtue of section 5(7) (registration of interests) in the MPs' code of conduct relating to financial interests".
	This is an issue on which I have been reflecting throughout the day. I am minded to reflect further on this specific offence and come back to it on Report. The Government are absolutely clear that they regard the offence mentioned in Clause 8(1) as a prerequisite of the Bill. We want that offence to stand; we consider it to be extremely important for the core function of the Bill. As I said, I am reflecting on whether the offence referred to in Clause 8(2) might be removed, but I shall come back on that in due course. The noble Lord has a question.

Lord Higgins: I am now totally mystified. I thought that we were debating Clause 5.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: The noble Lord is absolutely right, but the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked for my views about Clause 8(2) and I am responding to that question. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me, but that is how it is. It was not I who began this debate.

Lord Higgins: Am I to understand that the noble Baroness has it in mind to make further amendments to Clause 5 or is she now satisfied that it is all right?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: I have no intention of amending Clause 5 further. I believe that it is excellent as it stands. It is extremely important and it lies at the heart of the new regime established by the Bill. This clause is essential for the re-establishment of public trust in Parliament. It demonstrates that House of Commons rules on financial interests should be drawn up and overseen by a body outside Parliament; that is what Clause 5 does. It sets out the requirement for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority to prepare a code on financial interests that must be observed by Members of the House of Commons.
	The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, suggested that there was now some confusion about the codes. My noble friend has kindly suggested that we prepare a note for all noble Lords setting out the differences between the two. The code referred to in Clause 5 specifically relates to financial matters. If the clause were removed from the Bill, I do not believe that the new body being established would have any oversight of these vital elements of MPs' financial interests and therefore the Bill as a whole would not answer public demands for independence and transparency.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I think that the Leader of the House is saying that, in thinking about Clause 5, we should think also about Clause 8. The moment that the offences in Clause 8 become criminal, there is a possibility that the offence referred to in Clause 8(2) will become a disciplinary matter, although that may or may not be the case. Therefore, in looking at Clause 5, we should look forward to Clause 8 as well. Is that roughly the position?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: I am sorry to complicate matters but if, and I repeat "if", Clause 8(2) were removed from the Bill and the offence referred to in it were not to stand, it would, as the noble Lord makes clear, then be for the House of Commons as it is now—the parliamentary standards authority—to deal with any transgression of the rules pertaining to the register.
	The code of conduct relating to financial interests is for IPSA. It is deliberately left to IPSA to determine, as informed by the Kelly review. There is interaction between the Kelly review and IPSA and IPSA will take into consideration the work being undertaken by the Kelly committee. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked whether IPSA had any functions in relation to paid advocacy. IPSA will be responsible for making the rules on paid advocacy. Neither IPSA nor the commissioner will have a role in enforcing the rules on paid advocacy. That will be a matter for the House of Commons. That is a completely different issue.
	Why is Clause 8 in the Bill when we are dropping not only the offence on paid advocacy but also the power for IPSA and the commissioner to investigate? IPSA will be responsible for making the rules on paid advocacy.

Baroness Butler-Sloss: I have not entirely followed what the Minister has said. Is she now saying that Clause 8(3) will not be an offence?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: Yes, the Government are bringing forward an amendment which we will be taking on later in Committee. Clause 8(3) is dead and will no longer be an offence. There is also an amendment from my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours to that effect. Clause 8(3) has gone. I am reflecting on Clause 8(2), but Clause 8(1) is here to stay. We can give much away, but not Clause 8(1).
	I was asked many more questions and I am sure that I have not provided all the answers. The basic requirements for the code set out in the clause embody the principles that the House of Commons has long accepted should govern its conduct in relation to financial interests arising outside Parliament. The House of Commons will continue to have the ability to make the final decision about the contents of the code, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, said, but it is essential to the restoration of trust in politics that the code is seen to be the responsibility of and to be enforced by a body outside the House. I am happy to consider any further questions.

Earl Ferrers: I have a simple question for the Leader of the House. She has gone through this clause and explained all the complications and the offences to which Members of Parliament will be liable. Does she not think that we have gone over the top? Four years ago, the situation was the same as it was 34 years ago. Members of Parliament were governed by the rules then and there would not have been a row four years ago, but now there is the most appalling row. Does she not think that we have overreacted?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: No, I absolutely do not think that we have overreacted. We are ensuring that in future there will be greater transparency and greater public confidence in the House of Commons. We owe it to our colleagues in the House of Commons to restore trust in our parliamentary system, the trust that has been so severely damaged over the past weeks. That is what this Bill is all about and I think that it is extremely important that we deliver it precisely so that we can restore that trust.

Lord Campbell-Savours: This Bill is rapidly turning into a good Bill. People are not really taking stock of what is happening. I know that large sections are being deleted and, in the event that my noble friend goes down the route of taking out subsections (2) and (3) on advocacy and registration, I believe that the residual Bill will be universally popular and will work.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: I, too, think that the Bill will be much improved as a result of the efforts of the Committee and of the Leader of the House and her colleagues on the Front Bench. This has been unfortunate. The fuss and the difficulties in the Commons have all been related to the allowances system; they have not, in the past few weeks, been related to MPs' outside interests. We ourselves had a little problem with outside interests and paid advocacy not long ago, but that was at this end of the Corridor, not the other end.
	This part of the Bill, dealing with paid advocacy and the registration of outside interests, seems to me to be much the more difficult to get right. We all—well, most of us—want MPs to be able to continue with outside interests. That is the more difficult bit of the Bill to get right, yet that is being rushed through alongside the bit that is important to do quickly, which is the bit relating to allowances, where all the trouble and damage have been to the House of Commons in the past few months. I am sorry that that is the way that it has worked out, but that is the way it is heading and I feel it right to put that on the record as my opinion.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I share the view that the Bill is being much improved, but I think that I heard the Leader of the House say "later in Committee". Because we cannot really absorb all the changes being made today, is it possible for the Committee to meet this week, to meet the needs of the Government to table their amendments so that they can be further considered, rather than have it all done in a great hiccup at Report next week? I should have thought that that would be in the interests of the Government and Parliament, as it would give us time to reflect. I do not know whether that is what the Leader of the House had in mind when she said "later in Committee". She surely cannot mean later tonight in Committee, because the Government cannot table further amendments tonight.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: The government amendment to Clause 8(3) has been tabled; it is in the Marshalled List. That is the amendment that I was referring to that we will consider later in Committee. Any amendment that I might bring forward pertaining to Clause 8(2) I will table for Report. I of course undertake to table any amendments for Report at the earliest opportunity.
	The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked when we might publish a revised Bill. Of course, it depends when we finish Committee, but I undertake to do everything possible to ensure that the revised Bill is published before the weekend.

Lord Strathclyde: It was useful to have that debate on Clause 5, although we spent a large amount of time talking about Clause 8. I am glad that we have clarified that Clause 8(3) is going and that there is the strongest possibility that Clause 8(2) will be removed, so that we will be left with just Clause 8(1).
	Other noble Lords who have spoken, including the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, have said that we are being asked to absorb a great many changes to the Bill from all the amendments that have been made. If we finish the Bill tonight—I have a feeling that we will not—it could be reprinted tomorrow, but if we continue Committee for, say, a couple of hours on Thursday, it will not be reprinted until Friday. I wonder—I have no idea of the answer—whether there is any way in which there could be some sort of interim publication to deal with all the amendments that we have already had to help us when we get to Report on Monday. The alternative is that Report on Monday may end up being a recommitment of the Bill; I am not sure that the Government would be very keen on that at all.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I remember that, once in the past, the Government published a Bill with some amendments in an informal way, so that one could see what changes had been made and we could follow it. That was certainly done in the past. I cannot remember the occasion, but it could be done in a non-binding way.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: That is certainly an interesting suggestion. I will take back the suggestions both from the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that we publish an interim Bill and from the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that we publish an informal Bill and come back to the House as soon as possible.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I think that there is no theoretical objection to publishing a Bill as amended in Committee up to a certain point, but I can see some practical difficulties because of the strain that that might put on the resources available for printing and numbering.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: The Government could provide an informal version known as a Keeling schedule if that would assist the Committee.
	Clause 5 agreed.
	Clause 6 : Investigations
	Amendments 42A to 42C
	 Moved by Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
	42A: Clause 6, page 4, line 23, after "with" insert "a requirement included by virtue of section 5(7) (registration of interests) in"
	42B: Clause 6, page 4, line 28, leave out paragraph (c)
	42C: Clause 6, page 4, line 30, leave out from "investigation," to "provide" in line 31 and insert "the IPSA must"
	Amendments 42A to 42C agreed.
	Amendment 43 not moved.
	Amendment 43A
	 Moved by Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
	43A: Clause 6, page 4, line 33, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert—
	"(4) If, after conducting an investigation, the Commissioner finds that the member was paid an amount under the scheme that should not have been allowed, the Commissioner must refer the Commissioner's findings to the House of Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges.
	(5) But the Commissioner need not refer the findings if—
	(a) the member accepts the findings,
	(b) such other conditions as may be specified by the IPSA are, in the Commissioner's view, met in relation to the case, and
	(c) the member repays to the IPSA, in such manner and within such period as the Commissioner considers reasonable, such amount as the Commissioner considers reasonable.
	(5A) If, after conducting an investigation, the Commissioner finds that the member failed to comply with a requirement included in the code by virtue of section 5(7), the Commissioner must refer the Commissioner's findings to the Committee on Standards and Privileges.
	(5B) But the Commissioner need not refer the findings if—
	(a) the member accepts the findings,
	(b) the Commissioner considers that the financial interest concerned was minor or that the failure was inadvertent,
	(c) such other conditions as may be specified by the IPSA are, in the Commissioner's view, met in relation to the case, and
	(d) the member takes any steps required by the Commissioner to correct the register.
	(5C) If the Commissioner finds that a member who is the subject of an investigation has not provided the Commissioner with information the Commissioner reasonably requires for the purposes of the investigation, the Commissioner may refer the finding to the Committee on Standards and Privileges."
	Amendments 43B to 43E not moved.
	Amendment 43A agreed.
	Amendments 44 to 46 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: Amendments 47 and 48 are pre-empted.
	Amendment 48A
	 Moved by Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
	48A: Clause 6, page 5, line 6, leave out "a report under subsection (4) is" and insert "the Commissioner's findings are"
	Amendment 48A agreed.
	Amendment 48B not moved.
	Amendment 48C
	 Moved by Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
	48C: Clause 6, page 5, line 10, at end insert—
	"(ba) the Commissioner, and"
	Amendment 48C agreed.
	Amendment 49
	 Moved by Lord Lester of Herne Hill
	49: Clause 6, page 5, line 12, leave out subsection (8) and insert—
	"( ) The procedures referred to in subsection (6) must, in particular, provide a member who is the subject of an investigation or complaint with—
	(a) a prompt and clear statement of the precise allegations against the member;
	(b) adequate opportunity to take legal advice and have legal assistance throughout;
	(c) the opportunity to be heard in person;
	(d) the opportunity to call relevant witnesses at the relevant time;
	(e) the opportunity to examine other witnesses;
	(f) the opportunity to attend meetings at which evidence is given, and to receive transcripts of evidence;
	(g) the benefit of a standard of proof of beyond reasonable doubt where the allegation amounts to a criminal charge, and of the balance of probabilities in all other cases."

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I shall speak also to Amendments 51, 64 and 76, which have been grouped. I move this amendment and speak to the others partly as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, drawing upon its report, and partly relying upon the report of the Constitution Committee, which is also dealing with these matters. This amendment and the others in the group are designed to tackle a problem that the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege highlighted a decade ago, which is the problem of ensuring fairness to Members of Parliament, given the system that we operate.
	Paragraph 13 of the Constitution Committee's 18th report, under the heading "Supervision by the courts" explains:
	"When a new public body or regulatory scheme is to be established, constitutional scrutiny requires there to be careful examination of the proposals to ensure that adequate arrangements have been made for a regulated person to be able to make legal challenges to a decision. This is a practical application of the constitutional principle of the rule of law".
	Paragraph 14 states:
	"In the context of the present bill, consideration of the principle that a regulated person should have access to a tribunal or court is complicated by the fact that there is a rival constitutional principle of great importance— parliamentary privilege".
	Paragraph 15 says:
	"For sound constitutional reasons, the courts have historically respected the right of Parliament to govern itself and have refused to be drawn into any disputes that may arise about things said or done in Parliament".
	The committee then explains why.
	Paragraph 26 of this admirable report explains:
	"The fact that investigations and other regulatory decisions are now to be placed on a statutory footing (rather than based on a Resolution of the House of Commons) does not, in and of itself, have the consequence that they will in future be judicially reviewable. The courts will determine the extent".
	Paragraph 34 says:
	"We believe that, as a matter of constitutional principle, decision-making powers of a public authority should be subject to the possibility of an appeal to a different body. We see no justification for denying members such a right of appeal against determinations of the IPSA".
	It then refers to the 1998 report of the Joint Committee on Privileges and the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and explains what it sees as the problems.
	Paragraph 35 refers to the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the earlier committee on the problem of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and concludes:
	"We recognise that such an appeal would have profound implications for parliamentary privilege if the appellate body were to be a judicial tribunal outwith Parliament".
	I apologise for referring to all that, but it is necessary background to explaining what this clutch of amendments is trying to do. I say straightaway that none of them does it wholly successfully.
	Amendment 49 comes straight out of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege's recommendation and sets out in detail what fairness requires when a Member is subject to an investigation or a complaint. Proposed new paragraphs (a) to (f) have been endorsed by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. That is one way of trying to tackle the problem. It is elaborate, but it has the benefit of having been endorsed by two committees—one extremely powerful—in the past.
	Another way of tackling the problem is set out modestly in Amendment 51, which would insert the word "fair" into the reference to the procedures that are to be agreed.
	Another way was proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, to the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and is set out in Amendment 76; it is a right of appeal by a Member of the House of Commons to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Although the amendment is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Tyler, it has the disadvantage of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council being outwith Parliament and therefore gives rise to the problems of parliamentary privilege to which noble Lords have referred.
	These are all different attempts to find a way of ensuring that Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which binds the United Kingdom, including Parliament and the other two branches of government, is satisfied in a way that is compatible with our democratic political and legal system. That is the puzzle.
	I do not think that even the most fanatical person looking at the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights at this hour needs my explanation of why the cases of Demicoli v Malta and Pierre Bloch v France do or do not mean that Article 6 is in play. Let us assume, as did the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in 1998, that if a Member of Parliament is subjected to really severe disciplinary penalties, that in terms of the convention the MPs' civil rights and obligations are being determined, or that he or she is being subjected to what is in substance a criminal charge, the requirement of the right to an independent and impartial tribunal is triggered by the convention. I believe that to be the case. More importantly, that view was taken by the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege as a likely outcome where severe sanctions were involved.
	There is no problem when the Bill creates new criminal offences because such an offence can be tried in the ordinary way by an independent and impartial criminal court, which involves no clash with Article IX of the Bill of Rights. If a Member of Parliament is guilty of a crime in that traditional sense of crime, it is not connected with proceedings in Parliament. Criminal conduct of that kind cannot be regarded as proceedings in Parliament. At Second Reading I mentioned the case of Senator Brewster in the United States. He was a crooked senator who accepted a bribe and tried to argue that Article IX of the Bill of Rights meant that he could not be prosecuted. The Supreme Court threw it out. Clearly, in doing so, it was well versed in our system of government and in the case law on Article IX in this country. There is no problem where we create a crime or where there is a crime.
	The problem arises in respect of the broader disciplinary powers of the House of Commons in whatever form and by any of the bodies in this Bill or otherwise. It is therefore very important to find a way to ensure fairness for Members of Parliament in a way which complies with the Bill of Rights and Article IX, and with the principles of fairness in the rule of law. Even MPs are entitled to fairness—it seems to me.
	Perhaps I may hasten to say, as I did at Second Reading—all my attempts are objectionable in one way or another—that the right way forward would be to have a domestic tribunal within the House of Commons set up under statute. Its composition would be judicial but its members would not sit as judges of the Queen's courts. They would sit as members of a parliamentary standards tribunal. There is nothing strange about that because in lots of legislation, including that for financial services and the regulation of solicitors, doctors or barristers, it is commonplace that serious disciplinary offences, involving for example being struck off or subject to a financial penalty, go to an independent and impartial tribunal. It used to be the Privy Council but it no longer is. In that way, fairness is accorded to members of those professions. We are concerned with fairness to members of the political profession, who are as entitled to fairness, as the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege pointed out.
	One has a choice. If we decide to do nothing, there will be judicial review proceedings. The Government have already conceded that decisions under this Bill are capable of being judicially reviewed. The proceedings will not satisfy Article 6 because the European Court of Human Rights has made it clear that there has to be a tribunal which can look at the facts and not only the law. It must be able to look at the merits and not just procedure. One has to have a true appeal to a proper tribunal or court in order that Article 6 can be satisfied. It is not good enough to leave it to judicial review, and in any case judicial review suffers from all the problems of Article IX as to the extent to which it is proper for the judicial review court to deal with it.
	It seems to me that the right way forward is to create a tribunal within the House of Commons that satisfies the requirements of the rule of law and of parliamentary privilege, but keeps it domestic—within the House and not outwith it. No one would question anything in the House in another place. I do not believe it to be beyond the capacity of the Government to devise a tribunal of that kind. I raised this at Second Reading and I am sure that much better brains than mine have been thinking about it ever since. Having said that, I beg to move.

Lord Campbell-Savours: The noble Lord, Lord Lester, has raised an extremely important issue, one of the most important issues that we deal with only tangentially in this Bill. It is something that has caused me anguish over a number of years. I served on the Members' Interests Committee in the House of Commons from 1983 to 1992 and on the Privileges Committee from 1996 to 2001. There were a number of occasions when Members felt that they had been unjustly treated by the Privileges Committee. While I could not argue in defence of Neil Hamilton, during the course of his case he raised issues that I believe were of fundamental importance and which did not bring the Privileges Committee, in its procedures—if I may use the term—into good repute.
	On two occasions, certainly, I remember moving amendments to deal with the whole question of appeal. That is because the issue is one of appeal, and Members feel aggrieved when there is no structure to enable them to do so. Those Members who are interested, the anoraks in this area—I think it is particularly interesting—might wish to consider the review of the first report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life entitled Reinforcing Standards, carried out by the noble Lord, Lord Neill, who unfortunately is not in his place. I am sure that if he had been, he would have wanted to refer to this report. In his review he refers to the original recommendations and I shall quote from that. The original Committee on Standards in Public Life stated that,
	"we consider that a sub-committee of the Committee of Privileges consisting of up to seven very senior Members would be the best body to take forward individual cases recommended by the Commissioner for further consideration; we recommend that such a sub-committee should be established ... as the sub-committee would report to the full Privileges Committee, this would have the practical effect of giving the Member a right of appeal to that Committee. Only the most serious cases should need to be considered by the whole House".
	I was one of the Members who opposed the recommendation at the time, but I was wrong, as I learnt over the years. I do not think it is too late to go back to this issue. Looking back on my experience over those years, I think that the structure of the Committee on Standards and Privileges is wrong. It should be, moreover, a judicial committee, and it might well be that it should comprise in major part people from outside the Commons—they may well be people from this House. The sub-committee would carry out the functions of the existing committee. Then the higher committee, consisting of people from a judicial background because these would be judicial appointments, would become the appellate body. I believe that that would satisfy the anxieties of Members hauled before these committees under the new structure. In my view, that would deal with the problem just identified by the noble Lord.
	The noble Lord talked about an appellate body within the House of Commons itself, and that is critically important. I would say to Sir George Young that I know it means that the members of that committee would give up some of their responsibilities and their existing powers, but they have to consider this. It is an important issue. Members who read the appendices to the judgment in the Downey report on the Hamilton case will find repeated references to Hamilton and his grievance over the lack of an appeal being available to him. Indeed, I remember a division in the committee after Ann Widdecombe spoke of her great concern, which led her to vote against much of the Hamilton report. She gave a long explanation of why she felt uneasy. If I remember rightly, she resigned from the committee over this on an issue of principle. I am sure the record of the time will correct me if I am wrong.
	I say to my noble friend that we cannot do a great deal about this in the Bill, but I hope the message goes out to the House of Commons that it should get this problem sorted out because it leads to injustices.

Lord Pannick: I support modest Amendments 51 and 64 which seek to add the word "fair". It is right that there should be a fair opportunity to make representations to the commissioner for the purposes of Clause 6, and a fair opportunity to make representations to IPSA under Clause 7. The Bill should make clear the obligation to act fairly.
	I am much less enthusiastic about Amendment 49. I doubt the wisdom of setting out in detail what a fair procedure requires in this context, particularly when we are dealing with a novel jurisdiction. It may, for example, not be necessary or appropriate in all cases to give an oral hearing to those affected and the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. That may depend upon the issues in the case. As long as they have a statutory duty to act fairly, I would much prefer to leave the statutory bodies to decide for themselves what procedures to adopt.
	Amendment 76 raises different and difficult questions. I agree that there needs to be a right of appeal against a direction made by IPSA under Clause 7(1). As I understand Clause 7, IPSA will make decisions under subsection (1) and it is therefore right for there to be a right of appeal to a judicial body. However, I am not persuaded that there should be a right of appeal, as Amendment 76 suggests, against a determination by the House of Commons. Contrary to the terms of Amendment 76, the House of Commons will not determine any criminal charge—that will be a matter for the criminal courts—but it will determine disciplinary issues against Members. To propose a right of appeal, even to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, touches precisely upon the issue with which we began these Committee discussions so many hours ago. To confer a right of appeal would touch upon that most fundamental of constitutional principles that the courts, the judges, should have no role in relation to decisions taken by the House of Commons in disciplinary matters. This is not simply an academic theory; it is a vital, practical principle to ensure the avoidance of any conflict between Parliament and the judiciary.
	As has been suggested by the noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord Campbell-Savours, the solution is that the House of Commons could set up a fair procedure which complies with Article 6, as, I remind your Lordships, this House did; when it imposed disciplinary sanctions on its Members most recently, it adopted a fair procedure. However, this is entirely a matter for the other place. Its Members will no doubt consider what has been said here, but it is a matter for them.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I support the view put forward that it would be highly desirable for the House of Commons to consider setting up an internal, fair appeal system to be used in the case of an important direction. I agree that it would be a mistake to have an appeal to the judicial committee of the Privy Council, because our constitution prevents any recourse from a decision of the House of Commons or of Parliament to the ordinary courts. Strictly speaking, the judicial committee of the Privy Council, although it is not particularly ordinary, is still a court of law, and it would, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, be a breach of the principle to have an appeal there. A domestic appeal tribunal within the House of Commons therefore strikes me as the best, but "fair" is what is required, and we should possibly leave it to the House of Commons to decide how to deal with it fairly.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Perhaps I may respond to both the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. If we include "fair" in the Bill and do not have some kind of appeal tribunal to deal with at least a limited part of the Bill, is there not a problem that that will then be capable of judicial review? The Government have conceded that decisions will be capable of judicial review, which will involve a collision with Article IX. Therefore, while we all agree that fairness needs to be in the Bill, do we not need to try to—as it were—hive off judicial review as much as possible and have the decision dealt with by a domestic tribunal? I quite understand that the wider questions of the House of Commons should be sorted out by the House of Commons, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, pointed out, but I am trying to address the need for the fairness principle to operate practically within the framework of the Bill without going into the wider question of the House of Commons' disciplinary functions as a whole, which is for another day. Does the noble and learned Lord share my concern that, if we put fairness in the Bill but do not create some kind of tribunal, we shall finish up with judicial review, with all its problems?

Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I quite see that point, but it would as a practical matter be mightily difficult for us in the time that the Government have made available to work out the detail of an internal committee. I also take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, that how the House of Commons is practically to go about it is a matter for the House of Commons itself. However, the Bill is not the end of everything if it becomes law. The House of Commons authorities, the Government and the others in the House of Commons, with that indication, might set about thinking of a tribunal within the House of Commons that will deal with this kind of problem. I agree that, if that does not happen, there is a risk of judicial review, but I hope that the threat of that might be sufficient to spur on authorities in the Commons to take up this point.

Baroness Butler-Sloss: I respectfully share the view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. It would highly undesirable, not to say dangerous, to have an appeal system, of any sort, that went to any court, even the distinguished Privy Council. One would hope that the other place might feel it appropriate to create some system that met the particular problems raised so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. If one reads the Bill, one can see that there will be occasions when people who come before the House of Commons under the Bill when it becomes law will feel that they have not been justly treated. However, that ought to be a matter for the other place, which ought to be able to create whatever system it feels appropriate to meet that real problem.
	We have rightly heard a great deal about the Human Rights Act and the European Convention. I remind the Committee that the principles of fairness and the rule of law pre-existed the Human Rights Act by many centuries.

Lord Tyler: With great trepidation, among such distinguished legal company, may I point out a practical point which I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, or, indeed, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, have recognised? The report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which is endorsed by Members of the other place, and a Government majority in the other place, specifically requires us to look very carefully at this issue now. We cannot just leave it for the future.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Can the noble Lord clarify what he has said? Does he mean that the report has been accepted by the other place, as he implied, or does he mean that Members of the other place were on the committee?

Lord Tyler: The latter, of course. I read carefully the contribution of the chairman, a very distinguished member of the Minister's party in the other place. He is anxious that your Lordships' House, in Committee, faces up to this simple recommendation. It said that,
	"we conclude that the Bill, as currently drafted, is incompatible with the right to a fair hearing in Article 6(1) ECHR. To render it compatible, it needs to be amended in two ways".
	Those two ways are incorporated in the amendment in the name of my noble friend and myself. My noble friend has made it quite clear that since we have tabled these amendments, we have given more thought to the actual method by which these objectives can be reached. But it is not good enough simply to say, "Let them deal with it when they can". This is an extremely important issue, and if it is not addressed during the passage of this Bill, when will it be?
	My noble friend has rightly said that his preferred method of a tribunal, set up within the framework of Parliament, deals with the point to which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred. There is no possibility of the parliamentary privilege issue being raised. I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, is not in his customary place this evening. Both the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, which reported in 1999—I was a member of it—and the Committee on Standards in Public Life made it clear that it was essential to deal with this problem. To my mind, the legislation that was recommended by the joint committee 10 years ago would have helped us hugely had it been followed through by the Government since, but it has not been.
	Simply to leave this as unfinished business and hope that somebody is listening to us at 10.20 at night and that somebody in the other place will do something about it at some time is not good enough. We have to have a firm assurance from the Government Front Bench that they will bring forward, at some point—not necessarily between now and Monday—an internal procedure to make sure that the requirements of the committee and of the ECHR are being met. Otherwise there will be a serious omission in the Bill, and I entirely endorse the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, about the inadequacy of past procedures.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: I endorse the sense of urgency which my noble friend Lord Tyler has brought to this. After all, we expect the Bill to receive Royal Assent next week. Many of its provisions will subsequently be brought into force by statutory instrument; given the urgency with which the Bill has been brought forward, we assume that that will happen soon. It is not a question of being able to take one's time in addressing the issue of some appellate body, probably within Parliament or within the House of Commons, the need for which, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, indicated, was identified in the issues surrounding the case of Neil Hamilton. Indeed, the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, which reported 10 years ago in 1999, also identified this. The report of the Constitution Committee on which my colleague the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and I both sit, identified this issue quite clearly, although it does not come up with any solution, not least because the time available meant that it was not possible to do so. But there is a very real issue here.
	My noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill has indicated clearly that the proposal that refers to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which was, as I understand from the 1999 report of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, a suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, has difficulties in itself, as has already been referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, as it would raise the issues of parliamentary privilege which we have tried to avoid. The alternative to that, though, has to be some tribunal from within Parliament, from either the House of Commons or both Houses. We cannot put off the day when that is determined, because these issues could become active before very long.
	When other people, such as prisoners and members of the Armed Forces in combat, can all access the European Convention on Human Rights, I see no reason why Members of Parliament should not also be able to. If the House of Commons can take away someone's livelihood—if it can suspend them without pay for a period of time or expel them—that clearly affects their livelihood and reputation, and they therefore have a right to some appellate tribunal. My noble friend Lord Lester has raised an important point, and I hope that the Minister can give us some assurance that has been actively addressed.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I agree with the noble Lord that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has indeed brought an important matter to your Lordships' attention today. This has been a fascinating and high-quality debate, mainly, though not exclusively, between esteemed lawyers in your Lordships' House. In a sense, that debate has shown the difficulty that there would be in reaching consensus, particularly in the short time that is available.
	I am aware that that will be used against me when I say that we have to be very careful about thinking of legislating in this area in the time available, given the different views that noble Lords have put forward. However, I accept the point that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, wishes to debate. He called it the "puzzle" of how to achieve fairness that complies with the rule of law and with ECHR rights but does not, he implied, undermine the privileges of Parliament.
	The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, asked what comfort I could give. There are a number of government amendments, some of which have been spoken to and some of which have yet to come before us, which I hope will give considerable comfort to noble Lords. Since we are where we are, though, I recognise that it has been difficult for noble Lords to take account of that in their comments.
	I begin with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, about criminal charges. He said that he had no problem with that because those matters would have to go through the courts.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: That does not mean that there is no problem about criminal charge in the sense of the convention. I was referring to traditional criminal charges. There is of course a problem if, in substance, a disciplinary offence is penal in character in terms of Article 6 criminal.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am grateful to the noble Lord for making that intervention.
	As we introduced the Bill, the IPSA's functions were limited to giving a direction or recommendation. Even in those circumstances, though, enforcement was to be a matter for the House in the exercise of its current conduct and discipline functions. Much of our debate today has been about whether the House of Commons's conduct and discipline functions are as fair as the noble Lord thinks they ought to be.
	Subsequent to the Bill's original publication, though, we have had two amendments that have changed the way in which the IPSA and the commissioner operate. First, IPSA is no longer to have any recommendation or direction functions. The commissioner is only to report findings to the House of Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges. That means that the commissioner would not be involved in determining civil rights or obligations for the purposes of Article 6.
	In addition, although the Government are not convinced by the JCHR's arguments concerning ECHR, we have none the less decided to accept the key safeguards from Amendment 49. Government Amendment 53B sets out that the procedure for commissioner investigations must include an opportunity for the MP to be heard in person, and an opportunity, where the commissioner considers it appropriate, to call and examine witnesses. My understanding is that that reflects the procedural safeguards which exist in Standing Order 150 of the other place, where the parliamentary commissioner for standards makes use of an investigatory panel to assist him. That ought to go some way to reassuring the noble Lord.
	My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, have raised concerns about how the Committee on Standards and Privileges conducts its affairs; it is only right and proper for noble Lords to do so. At the end of the day, however, that is very much a matter for the other place to regulate. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that it is part of that House's internal disciplinary proceedings. While I am happy to ensure that this debate is referred to appropriate Members in the other place, I am hesitant to go down the route of our determining what ought to happen.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Will the Minister at least accept on behalf of the Government—as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, have suggested in support—that fairness be written in as a trigger to encourage fairness in the procedures throughout? If that is not included, it would raise a rather serious issue.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Although the noble Lord himself, in the illuminating debate with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, also pointed out problems with the use of fairness, he coupled it without a tribunal, as he also suggested.
	To come to that, first, the amendment to the duty of IPSA in Clause 7(4) is of course rendered unnecessary if the Committee accepts the Motion of my noble friend the Leader of the House that Clause 7 does not stand part of the Bill. It is the Government's intention to invite noble Lords to join us in determining that Clause 7 does not stand part of the Bill. That ought to provide a great deal of comfort to noble Lords on all these matters.
	On the other fairness amendment, to Clause 6(8), we have to be cautious. On the face of it, introducing the word "fair" seems entirely reasonable and would give comfort. Both IPSA and the commission are of course under a public law duty to act reasonably, which is analogous to the duty to act fairly. Clearly an opportunity that was manifestly unfair would not be construed as an opportunity at all by the courts if the matter ever came before them. But I am advised that the addition of the word "fair" introduces a subjective test. Here we also come to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that, given that there is already a duty to act reasonably, the courts may decide that some additional duty is suggested which, in turn, may increase the likelihood that procedures were made subject to judicial review. I thought that was the point that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, was referring to.
	I am, of course, very happy to give this further consideration between now and Report stage, but it has to be on the basis of a "without commitment" consideration. I am concerned that we have to be very cautious about introducing words which, on the face of it, seem entirely reasonable but may, in themselves, set up problems in the future. From the debate that we have had tonight, it seems that there is no clear consensus among the esteemed lawyers who have spoken in your Lordships' House, which leads me to suggest that there could be problems with that word.
	I do not know that I really need to go on. I think I have covered the right of appeal to the Privy Council already. We have tabled amendments in relation to the right of an MP to be heard in person and the removal of Clause 7—if noble Lords will happily support the Government in doing so. In the end, where these procedures come to be considered by the House of Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges, they really ought to be matters for the House itself.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am sure that, at this hour, a brief reply is called for. At Second Reading the noble Baroness the Leader of the House said:
	"The IPSA will also need to act in setting these procedures in a way that is compatible with the Human Rights Act. This means that courts will be able to review the exercise of functions of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority on the basis of the ordinary principles of administrative and human rights law".—[Official Report, 8/7/09; col. 679.]
	One of the ordinary principles of administrative and human rights law is that anyone exercising public powers has a duty to act fairly. Therefore, at the very least, there should be no difficulty about writing that into the Bill, the Government having already accepted that the powers will be fully subject to judicial review. I am only quoting back the Second Reading speech, which has not—I take it—been retracted in the mean time.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Not at all, but I refer the noble Lord to his comments to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, when he himself expressed concern about the use of "fairness" without the domestic tribunal that he also wanted to bring in. I think other noble Lords have real concerns about that.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My concern is that the Bill should leave Parliament complying with the requirements of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I know that the Minister has certified that, in her view, it is compatible with the convention rights. There is an argument about that, which we do not have to have. However, assuming that the convention rights are triggered, my concern is that this House ought not to send the Bill back to the other House unless we are satisfied that it complies with the minimum requirements of Article 6 of the convention. It can be done by way of judicial review but I have serious problems with that, as does the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, because of the Bill of Rights. The only other solution that I can think of is a limited domestic tribunal which can look at the facts and at the procedure.
	I quite understand that the wider questions raised by the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Campbell-Savours, are very difficult. They were raised by the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege 10 years ago and have never been solved. They will remain. Unless the House of Commons looks at that and does something about it, one day a Neil Hamilton will surely go to Strasbourg if unfairly treated by the Commons and will succeed. I do not want that to happen. I want us to be able—within our legal and parliamentary systems—to solve the problem. I do not think that it is beyond the wit of the Government and their advisers to devise a tribunal system between now and Monday that is very clear and limited and deals with a narrow issue in the way that I have indicated.
	I have said my piece at too great length. I am very grateful to everyone who has taken part in the debate and I beg leave—

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: If the noble Lord begs leave to withdraw the amendment, I shall not be able to respond to his comments. His introductory remarks were entirely constructive; I hope that he did not think otherwise. He has identified what he considers to be a problem. He also said that the way forward that he suggested was not necessarily perfect but was an attempt to stimulate debate. We have had a very good debate. The combination of the various government amendments and the fact that we will oppose Clause 7 standing part of the Bill ought to provide considerable comfort.
	There is a real problem about this House seeking to determine procedures that properly fall to the other place to resolve. I have also suggested that, while the use of the word "fairness" seems attractive on the face of it, my advisers consider that there are problems with it. I am happy to take this matter away and institute discussions with the noble Lord, who has much expertise. However, I do so without commitment.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am very grateful. There must be adequate safeguards against abuse; that is all. There must be adequate safeguards of fairness and safeguards against abuse. I agree that the Government have moved towards that and that in some respects the situation is much better than it was. I would trust the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, to devise a procedure between them. I leave that matter to them and the Government. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 49 withdrawn.
	Amendments 50 to 52 not moved.
	Amendment 53 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.
	Amendments 53A and 53B
	 Moved by Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
	53A: Clause 6, page 5, line 16, leave out from first "the" to end of line 17 and insert "Commissioner, before the Commissioner's findings are referred to the Committee on Standards and Privileges, about the findings"
	53B: Clause 6, page 5, line 17, at end insert—
	"( ) Procedures by virtue of subsection (8)(a) must include—
	(a) an opportunity to be heard in person;
	(b) an opportunity, where the Commissioner considers it appropriate, to call and examine witnesses."
	Amendments 53A and 53B agreed.
	Clause 6, as amended, agreed.
	Clause 7 : Enforcement
	Amendments 54 and 55 not moved.
	Amendment 56 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.
	Amendment 57 not moved.
	Amendment 58 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.
	Amendment 59 not moved.
	Amendments 60 and 61 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.
	Amendments 62 to 64 not moved.

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: Amendment 65 has been pre-empted.
	Amendments 66 and 67 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.
	Amendments 68 and 69 not moved.
	Amendment 70 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.
	Amendments 71 to 75 not moved.
	Debate on whether Clause 7 should stand part of the Bill.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: We have discussed in detail the amendments that the Government have proposed to the Bill, and which your Lordships have agreed, in relation to the enforcement regime. As a result of those changes, particularly the removal of any powers of IPSA to direct an MP to repay allowances or to make an amendment to the Register of Interests, or to make any recommendation to the Standards and Privileges Committee about action that it might take against an MP, the need for the provisions of Clause 7 has fallen away, as it has for the safeguards that were specifically related to those powers. Since IPSA will not be recommending sanctions of any sort, we judge that there is no need to have a protocol about how it will work with bodies such as the DPP. Since there is to be no reference to the sorts of disciplinary powers that might be appropriate, the provisions that spelt out those powers and the provisions that made it clear that these were not any sort of restriction on the inherent powers of the House were also redundant.
	Our amendments to Clause 6 have adopted a different approach to the sanctions that might be appropriate where an MP has persistently failed to co-operate with an investigation. Therefore, I oppose the Motion that Clause 7 should stand part of the Bill.
	Clause 7 disagreed.
	House resumed.

House adjourned at 10.40 pm.